title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96: Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — Action for annulment — State aid — Decision finding aid incompatible and ordering its repayment — Unnotified aid — Steel Aid Code applicable — Rights of the defence — Protection of legitimate expectations — Interest rate applicable — Statement of reasons)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 16 December 1999
                                                                                of 17 February 2000
in Case T-158/96: Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          in Case T-183/97: Carla Micheli and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Action for annulment — State aid —
Decision finding aid incompatible and ordering its repay-
ment — Unnotified aid — Steel Aid Code applicable —                       (Action for annulment — Community policy for research
Rights of the defence — Protection of legitimate expectations             and technological development — MAST III Programme —
      — Interest rate applicable — Statement of reasons)                  Decision adopting the list of project proposals eligible for a
                                                                          Community contribution —Exclusion of a proposal for
                                                                          Community financing — Interest in bringing an action —
                        (2000/C 102/37)                                                        No need to adjudicate)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                                (2000/C 102/38)
In Case T-158/96: Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, established in
Bolzano (Italy), represented initially by Giulio Macrı́ and Bruno
Nascimbene, of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
the Biella Bar, and subsequently by Mr Nascimbene alone, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, supported by Falck SpA,
established in Milan (Italy), represented initially by Giulio Macrı́      In Case T-183/97: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike
and Franco Colussi, of the Milan Bar, and subsequently by Mr              Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini
Macrı́ and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar, with an                 Donà, Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Donà, of the Padua Bar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, and by the Italian Republic                     Ernest Arendt, 39 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission
(Agents: Umberto Colesanti and Aiello Giacomo) against the                of the European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Enrico                    Alberto Dal Farro) — application for the annulment of the
Traversa, Paul Nemitz, Enrico Altieri and, in the oral proceed-           Commission’s decision establishing the list of project proposals
ings, Tito Ballarino) — application for the annulment of                  eligible for a Community contribution under the specific
Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC of 17 July 1996 concern-                  programme of research and technological development,
ing aid granted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (Italy)             including demonstration, in the field of marine science and
to Acciaierie di Bolzano (OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30) — the Court               technology (1994 to 1998), in so far as it excludes the
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                  POSIBLE project coordinated by Carla Micheli, which decision
composed of J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Gar-                 was notified by the Commission’s letter of 26 March 1997,
cia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges;              received by fax on 17 April 1997 and by post on 20 May
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         1997 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
a judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:                              composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber,
                                                                          V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                          trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 February
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of     1. There is no further need to adjudicate on this case;
     the Commission;
                                                                          2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
3. Orders each intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.


title: Case C-489/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2008 by Mr Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) made on 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Appeal brought on 12 November 2008 by Mr Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) made on 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case C-489/08 P)
   (2009/C 82/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Matthias Rath (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-374/06;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its order under appeal, the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal that there is a likelihood of confusion as regards food supplements not for medical purposes and dietetic substances not adapted for medical use between the word sign ‘EPICAN’ applied for by the appellant and the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN FORTE’.
   The appellant's appeal is based on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance relied on erroneous facts in its assessment of the similarity of products and signs. If the Court had assessed the facts correctly, it would have had to conclude that there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue. This is particularly the case since, as the Court correctly found, consumers pay a high level of attention to the goods at issue in the proceedings.


title: Case C-481/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern.

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern.
   (Case C-481/04)
   (2005/C 19/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), of 3 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern on the following questions:

               1.

               Where a Turkish worker has been legally employed in the Federal Republic of Germany for more than three years, does his child who has reached the age of majority and has completed a course of vocational training as a metalworker by passing the final apprenticeship examination also forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right under the second sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council (‘Decision No 1/80’) to respond to any offer of employment – apart from cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where the host Member State is left without legitimate reason for a significant period of time – where

                           (a)

                           the child has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years and three months for aggravated robbery and drug offences, the sentence has not been suspended (even at a later date) and the whole of the sentence has been served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial?

                           (b)

                           the child has himself pursued employment as a worker within the legitimate labour force of the Federal Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and has subsequently forfeited that right?
                           Is such forfeiture caused by

                                       (aa)

                                       the fact that he left his last place of employment as a result of drug addiction-induced summary termination of his employment by his employer?

                                       (bb)

                                       the fact that, following a period of ill health of more than three months, he did not register with the competent authority as unemployed for a period of three working days between the end of his incapacity for work and his arrest for the commission of a criminal offence?

                                       (cc)

                                       the fact that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years and three months for aggravated robbery and drug offences, that the sentence was not suspended (even at a later date), that the whole of the sentence was served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial and that during that time he was not available to the legitimate labour force but, approximately three months after his release, did find employment again with a firm on a temporary basis, without then having any national right of residence?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?


title: Case C-454/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Milano by order of that court of 25 October 2000 in the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto Scientifico delle Venezie SpA against Duphar International Research BV, and Consorzio Produttori Principi Attivi Generici — CPA, intervener

text:
24.2.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/3
Under Community law, in particular under the principle of                   Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
Community solidarity contained in Article 10 EC, and in the                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
circumstances described in the grounds of this decision (1), is                                           Spain
an administrative body required to reopen a decision which
has become final in order to ensure the full operation of
Community law, as it is to be interpreted in the light of a                                          (Case C-463/00)
subsequent preliminary ruling?
                                                                                (2001/C 61/07)
(1) In this case the appellant exhausted the legal remedies available to
    (although the College did not seek a preliminary ruling under (the      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
    present) Article 234 at the time) and the College gave an               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
    interpretation of European law on a specific point which proved         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    subsequently to differ from the Court’s interpretation in a later       represented by Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes, with an
    judgment.                                                               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                            Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2), together
                                                                                with Article 1, of Law 5/1995 (1), and the implementing
                                                                                decrees enacted under Article 4 thereof (Royal Decrees
                                                                                No 3/1996 of 15 January 1996 concerning Repsol, No
                                                                                8/1997 of 10 January 1997 concerning Telefónica de
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello                         España, No 40/1998 of 16 January 1998 concerning
di Milano by order of that court of 25 October 2000 in                            Argentaria, No 562/1998 of 2 April 1998 concerning
the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto Scientifico delle                         Tabacalera and No 929/1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning
Venezie SpA against Duphar International Research BV,                             Endesa), in so far as they implement a system of prior
and Consorzio Produttori Principi Attivi Generici —                               administrative authorisation
                           CPA, intervener
                                                                                —     which is not justified by overriding public interest
                           (Case C-454/00)                                              requirements,
                                                                                —     without laying down objective criteria which are
                            (2001/C 61/06)                                              consistent and have been made public, and
                                                                                —     without complying with the principle of pro-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  portionality,
European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan) of 25 October 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2000, for                       are incompatible with Article 43 EC (ex Article 52) and
a preliminary ruling in the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto                   Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b).
Scientifico delle Venezie SpA, having its registered office in
Padua, Italy, against Duphar International Research BV, having              2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
its registered office in the Netherlands, and Consorzio Produt-
tori Principi Attivi Generici — CPA, intervener, on the
following question:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Must Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 (1) be interpreted as               The abovementioned provisions of Law 5/1995 and its
meaning that the scope of protection of the supplementary                   implementing decrees enable the Spanish authorities to subject
certificate extends only to manufacture of the raw material                 to prior administrative authorisation certain decisions (liqui-
from which is prepared the product which constitutes the                    dation, hiving off, merger, change of the company’s object,
medicinal product covered by the marketing authorisation?                   sale of assets and sale of more than 10 % of the shares) (Article
                                                                            3) taken by certain categories of companies in which the
                                                                            State’s shareholding is in excess of 25 % of the share capital
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/of 18 June 1992 concerning             and thereby results in it effectively controlling the company
    the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for med-         (Article 1), provided that such decisions lead either to the
    icinal products (OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1).                             State’s shareholding being reduced by at least 10 % of the
                                                                            capital so that its holding is less than 50 %, or to its
                                                                            shareholding being reduced by at least 15 % of the capital by
                                                                            any means (Article 2). Those facts have not at any time been
                                                                            disputed by the Spanish Government.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2004 in Case T-337/03: Luis Bertelli Gálvez v Commission of the European Communities (Action for failure to act — Procedure laid down in Article 7 EU — Complaint of alleged breaches of the principles set out in Article 6(1) EU by the Spanish judicial authorities — Clear lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/42

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 2 April 2004
   in Case T-337/03: Luis Bertelli Gálvez v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Procedure laid down in Article 7 EU - Complaint of alleged breaches of the principles set out in Article 6(1) EU by the Spanish judicial authorities - Clear lack of jurisdiction)
   (2004/C 118/91)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-337/03: Luis Bertelli Gálvez, represented by J. Puche Rodríguez-Acosta, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities – application made under the third subparagraph of Article 232 EC seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to bring against the Kingdom of Spain the procedure laid down in Article 7 EU following the complaint made by the applicant regarding alleged breaches affecting him of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, set out in Article 6 EU, by the judicial authorities of that Member State – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               the action is dismissed because it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction;

               2.

               the applicant is to bear his own costs.

      (1)  Not yet published.


title: Judgment of the Court 16 May 2002 in Case C-482/99: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Aid granted by the French Republic to Stardust Marine — Decision 2000/513/EC — State resources — Imputability to the State — Prudent investor operating in a market economy)

text:
13.7.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/3
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September
                                                                                1999 on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine;
2.    Dismisses the cross-appeal by the Commission;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
3.    Orders Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and Refinarias            (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
      de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) to pay the costs;
4.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                4 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-483/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of France (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                            16 May 2002                                     Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
                                                                            EC) — Rights attaching to the ‘golden share’ held by the
                                                                                French Republic in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine)
in Case C-482/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/05)
(State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Aid granted by the French
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Republic to Stardust Marine — Decision 2000/513/EC —
State resources — Imputability to the State — Prudent
           investor operating in a market economy)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 169/04)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-483/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: M. Patakia) v France (Agents: initially K. Rispal-
                                                                            Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      S. Seam), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Abad) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                            Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by J. Crow, barrister, and
                                                                            D. Wyatt, QC) APPLICATION for a declaration that, by
                                                                            maintaining in force Article 2(1) and (3) of Decree No 93-
In Case C-482/99, French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger              1298 of 13 December 1993 vesting in the State a ‘golden
and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities                    share’ in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine (JORF of 14 December
(Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett): Application for the annulment              1993, p. 17354), according to which the following rights
of Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999                      attach to the ‘golden share’ held by the French Republic in that
on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine (OJ 2000 L 206,                 company:
p. 6), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                  (a)   any direct or indirect shareholding by a natural or legal
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                        person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, which
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                               exceeds the ceiling of one tenth, one fifth or one third of
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-                        the capital of, or voting rights in, the company must
cate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   first be approved by the Minister for Economic Affairs
given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:                                     (Article 2(1) of the Decree);


title: Case T-117/03: Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 146/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the               Pleas in law and main arguments
right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him
cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as
regards public security and international relations. Considering            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of                   munity trade mark:
interest is in his favour.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLSPORT’ —
                                                                            sought:                      Application No 816 512 for
( 1) Not published in the OJ yet.                                                                        goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
( 2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)                                       and 25.
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
     L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).                                           sign cited in the oppo-
( 3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive         sition proceedings:
     measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
     to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).                Mark or sign cited in        Community            trade      mark
( 4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May        opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
     2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
                                                                                superposed on an L, both in
     and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
                                                                                English characters.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
                                                                            sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                          Pleas in law:                Incorrect         application      of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                       No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
                          (Case T-117/03)
                          (2003/C 146/72)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
                                                                            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                          (Case T-118/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by                                                (2003/C 146/73)
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
       Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R95/2002-1, and                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—      Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the           4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
       costs arising from the proceedings and from Case No 95/              in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
       2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.                     R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.


title: Case T-436/12: Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Ceramicas del Foix (Rock & Rock)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/25

         Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Ceramicas del Foix (Rock & Rock)
   (Case T-436/12)
   2012/C 379/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramicas del Foix, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2012 in case R 495/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘Rock & Rock’, for goods in classes 2, 19 and 27 — Community trade mark registration No 3468774

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on relative grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. The cancellation applicant invoked the following earlier rights: German trade mark registration No 30229274 of the word mark ‘Rock’, for goods and services in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, 19, 37 and 42; German trade mark registration No 30212141 of the word mark ‘MASTERROCK’, for goods and services in classes 17, 19 and 37; German trade mark registration No 39920622 of the word mark ‘FIXROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 2078534 of the word mark ‘FLEXIROCK’, for goods in class 19; German trade mark registration No 39732094 of the word mark ‘COVERROCK’, for goods in classes 17 and 19; German trade mark registration No 30306452 of the word mark ‘CEILROCK’, for goods in classes 6, 17 and 19

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-18/04: Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 71/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio                       Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-18/04)                                                             (Case T-19/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/67)
                        (2004/C 71/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy, Tampere,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Finland, represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer.
European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the contested decision (1) partially as concerns
                                                                                refusal to register the trade mark PAPERLAB on the
                                                                                grounds of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR (item 1 of the order).
                                                                                The subject appeal does not apply to item 2 of the order
—     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
                                                                                in which the Board of Appeal remits the case to the
      his request;
                                                                                examiner for further prosecution on the grounds of
                                                                                Article 7(3) CTMR;
—     Declare that the applicant is entitled, pursuant to
      Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of             —     order the Office to pay the costs of the applicant.
      100 % of all medical expenses incurred by him from
      4 January 2002 until complete recovery;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘PAPERLAB’ —
                                                                           cerned:                       application No 2 575 009
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Goods or service con-         Goods in Class 9 (Computer
                                                                           cerned:                       equipment and measuring instal-
                                                                                lations for surveying and testing
                                                                                of paper)
The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to                  Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
reimburse him 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him                before the Board of           examiner
in the course of treating his illness.                                     Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      The contested decision was
                                                                           Appeal:                       upheld insofar as it rejected the
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges infringement                                           application on the grounds of
of Article 72 of the Staff Regulation and an absolute failure to                                         Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
state reasons.                                                                                No 40/94. The case was remitted
                                                                                to the examiner for further pros-
                                                                                ecution on the grounds of
                                                                                Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94.


title: Case T-87/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/59

         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
   (Case T-87/15)
   (2015/C 138/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration of a Community trade mark No 11 867 215

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1797/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

               —

               allow the community trade mark application No 11 867 215 to proceed to publication;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-406/13: Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Gossio v Council

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/28

         Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Gossio v Council
   (Case T-406/13)
   2013/C 313/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Casablanca, Morocco) (represented by: S. Zokou, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 and Council Implementing Decision 2012/144/CFSP of 8 March 2012 establishing restrictive measures because of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire in so far as they relate to and affect the applicant;

                           —

                           the decision of 17 May 2013 confirming and prolonging the above mentioned restrictive measures in so far as the consequence is that the applicant must continue to be named among the persons and entities listed in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP and Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 concerning restrictive measures established in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment, in that:

                           —

                           the allegations as to what the applicant has done have no objective basis and are supported by no tangible evidence;

                           —

                           it is impossible to establish an objective connection between the reasons relied on to justify the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant and the general situation in Côte d’Ivoire;

                           —

                           the initial legal bases for the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are incompatible with the most recent grounds relied on to justify those measures;

                           —

                           the Council’s decisions are a misuse of procedure or abuse of power.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular his right to the presumption of innocence, his right to carry on business, his right of property, the principle of proportionality, the right to respect for private and family life and the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Albacom SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA (C-293/01) v Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Telecommunications services — General authorisations and individual licences — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and charges for individual licences)

text:
C 264/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
     Article 3 of that directive, whether a qualification obtained in        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     another Member State by a national of a Member State wishing            court between Albacom SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA
     to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State can           (C-293/01) and Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della
     be regarded as a diploma within the meaning of that provision           Programmazione Economica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni,
     and, if so, to determine the extent to which the training courses       on the interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European
     whose successful completion leads to the award of those                 Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common
     diplomas are similar with regard to both their duration and the         framework for general authorisations and individual licences
     matters covered. If it is apparent from that court’s examination        in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117,
     that both qualifications constitute diplomas within the meaning         p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
     of that directive and that those diplomas are awarded on the            President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola,
     completion of equivalent education or training, the directive           P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
     precludes the authorities of the host Member State from making          Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     access by that national of a Member State to the profession of          judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
     manager in the hospital public service subject to the condition
     that he complete the training given by the École nationale de la
     santé publique and pass the final examination at the end of             Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations
     that training.
                                                                             and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services
                                                                             and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, prohibit Member States from
2.   Where a national of a Member State holds a diploma obtained
                                                                             imposing financial charges other than and in addition to those
     in one Member State which is equivalent to the diploma
                                                                             allowed by the directive, such as the contested charge in the main
     required in another Member State in order to take up
                                                                             proceedings, on undertakings which hold individual licences in the
     employment in the hospital public service, Community law
                                                                             telecommunications sector solely because they hold such licences.
     precludes the authorities of the second Member State from
     making that national’s access to the employment in question
     subject to his passing a competition such as the entrance
                                                                             (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001 and OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
     examination of the École nationale de la santé publique.
(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                          of 11 September 2003
                      of 18 September 2003                                   in Case C-331/01: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Albacom
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Additional payments
SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA (C-293/01) v Ministero
                                                                             granted to producers of bovine animals in 1996 — Time-
del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Econ-
          omica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (1)                                      limits for notification of results of checks)
(Telecommunications services — General authorisations and                                              (2003/C 264/20)
individual licences — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and
                 charges for individual licences)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2003/C 264/19)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-331/01, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: initially by
                                                                             M. López-Monís Gallego and subsequently by L. Fraguas
                                                                             Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                             S. Pardo Quintillán): Application for the annulment of Com-
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01: Reference to the                      mission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001 excluding
Court under Article 234 EC by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)                 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by


title: Case C-153/01: Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/5
      has been submitted to the customs office and that invoice              crops which need little water. The legislation which was
      — like the declaration of customs value — does not                     enacted shortly afterwards in light of experience (Council
      reveal either expressly or by implication that in the                  Regulation No 1422/97) (2) bears out the fact that neither
      context of the transaction to be assessed interest was also            the objectives nor the spirit of the applicable Community
      paid by the buyer to the seller?                                       law were prejudiced.
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                                                                             As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-
      Do the interest payments then form part of the customs                 aside in relation to irrigated arable crops, they rely on
      value of the goods?                                                    the factual circumstances (the drought and the Act of
                                                                             Accession) acknowledged by Commission Regulation
                                                                             No 1040/95 (3) and to an agreement which unfortunately
(1) OJ L 154, 21.6.1980, p. 14.                                              will be put to the test only if it is recognised by the
(2) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.                                               Commission.
(3) OJ L 25, 30.1.1985, p. 7.
                                                                        —    (In the alternative) The financial adjustment includes
                                                                             items which should not be included and has been
                                                                             calculated in a way that is contrary to the applicable rules.
                                                                             Although items which the Commission alleges should be
                                                                             present are included in the adjustment, the way it has
                                                                             been calculated is incorrect.
Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Arable crops: the checks carried out in the Autonomous
                        (Case C-153/01)                                 Community of Andalusia in respect of the 1996 and 1997
                                                                        harvests were inadequate as to quality and quantity)
                        (2001/C 186/09)
                                                                        —    The checks carried out considerably exceed the minimum
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    required by the rules. The delays alleged to have occurred
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 as regards the standard-method checks cannot have any
Communities on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,                         repercussions since the checks carried out by tele-
represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                       detection, in themselves, exceed the compulsory mini-
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                      mum. Furthermore, it is not surprising that the additional
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.                 checks using the standard methods were carried out in
                                                                             part after 31 August, since they are additional checks
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  taking place later than the initial checks. The Commission
                                                                             failed to respond on both occasions when it was asked
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2001 (1)                 whether it was incorrect to carry out additional checks
      excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by               after 31 August. It is inconsistent to increase the amount
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                   of the adjustment in proportion to the number of
      EAGGF, in so far as that decision is the object of the                 additional checks, since that amounts to inflicting heavier
      present action; and                                                    penalties if more checks are carried out.
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                             The Spanish authorities consider that the adjustment
                                                                             relating to the tele-detection and standard-method checks
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              in Andalusia for the 1997 harvest is void for two further
                                                                             reasons:
(Arable crops: inadequate extraordinary set-aside for the 1995
harvest)                                                                     1.    The information used by the Commission to assess
                                                                                the 1997 harvest is incorrect since it concerns the
—     There was no failure to fulfil obligations such as to allow                  1996 harvest. There is, therefore, a manifest error of
      a financial adjustment to be made. The Spanish authorities                   fact.
      consider that they have not acted in breach of Community
      law.                                                                   2.    The adjustment relating to the 1997 harvest is
                                                                                indefensible because there has been a breach of the
      As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-                   principle of the right to a fair hearing.
      aside in the non-irrigated areas, they submit that the
      applicable law should be interpreted purposively and in a
      factual context, on the basis of a fact recognised by the              Even if the Court were to hold that it was appropriate to
      Commission: that the exceptional drought in 1994                       make a financial adjustment, the amount fixed by the
      prompted farmers to have recourse to the production of                 Commission cannot be justified.
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         30.6.2001
(Aid for the production of olive oil)                                         EAGGF (wrongfully, by way of reductions in the monthly
                                                                              advances) but which have still not been collected from
—    Spain refers to the position adopted in Cases C-349/97 (4)               the milk purchasers responsible for the excess produced.
     and C-130/99 (5).
—    In addition, the failings which the Commission detects in         ( 1) 2001/137/EC – OJ L 50 of 21.2.2001, p. 9.
     the system do not in any way prejudice the Community              ( 2) OJ L 196 of 24.7.1997, p. 18.
     budget, given that the total quantity of olive oil produced       ( 3) OJ L 106 of 11.5.1995, p. 4.
     in Spain in the marketing years in question is equal to, or       ( 4) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997, p. 1.
     greater than, that in respect of which aid has been               ( 5) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999, p. 23.
     received.                                                         ( 6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 laying down detailed
                                                                            rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70
—    (In the alternative) The Commission must reduce the                    regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the
     percentage of the financial adjustment, since it has                   EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).
     acknowledged that the situation has improved.                     (7) OJ, English Special Edition, 1970(I), p. 21.
(Aid for the consumption of olive oil)
—    Spain refers to the position adopted in Case C-374/99.
—    (In the alternative) Prior to the letter dated 17 August
     1998, the Spanish authorities were not informed in
     writing that, in respect of the 1996 financial year,
     pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (6),          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Circuit Court,
     the intention was to exclude a part of the expenditure            County of Cork (Ireland), by judgment of that court of
     from financing in accordance with the applicable pro-             9 March 2001, in the case of Catherine Withers against
     visions, as provided for in Article 5(2)(c) of Council                                      Samantha Delaney
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 as amended (7).
                                                                                (Case C-158/01)
(Additional levy on milk)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/10)
—    The action is directed against an adjustment of
     ESP 2 426 259 870 representing default interest, made             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     on the basis that Spain did not put into effect before            European Communities by a judgment of the Circuit Court,
     1 September 1996 the additional levy on milk for                  Cork (Ireland), of 9 March 2001, which was received at the
     the period 1995/1996 in relation to the purchasers                Court Registry on 17 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
     concerned. The Commission requires the Member State               the case of Catherine Withers against Samantha Delaney, on
     concerned to pay default interest in respect of amounts           the following questions:
     not collected from the milk purchasers responsible for the
     excess produced. Spain contends that its only obligation is       I.     Whether on the true interpretation of the provisions of
     to exercise due diligence in collecting the additional                   Directives of 24th April 1972 (72/166/EEC) (1) and of
     levy and to pay the amounts actually received to the                     30th December 1983 (84/5/EEC) (2), Ireland was entitled
     Commission. Payment of the amounts still due from the                    on the 23rd of July 1995 to maintain legislation (Sec-
     producers has been required by the Spanish authorities                   tion 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Road Traffic
     from the persons concerned but the latter have brought                   (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1962) which did not
     legal proceedings and the national courts have stayed                    make compulsory insurance mandatory for passengers
     execution (requiring by way of security payment of the                   injured in a ‘part of a vehicle, other than a large public
     principal amount plus interest until the date of payment).               service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle is designed
     Therefore, the national authorities have not been negli-                 and constructed with seating accommodation for passen-
     gent since they cannot prevent the debtors from having                   gers’?
     recourse to the judicial remedies available at national
     level in respect of administrative demands for payment.           II.    If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was not so
     Furthermore, the delay in the judicial proceedings does                  entitled and was in breach of its obligations in this regard,
     not prejudice the Commission, since Spanish legislation                  is Ireland liable in damages to the plaintiff if the plaintiff
     provides in such cases that suspension of the administrat-               fails to get compensation from the MIBI, that is the body
     ive decision requiring payment is to be granted only                     authorised by Ireland under Article 1, para 4 of Council
     where a bank guarantee or equivalent security is provided,               Directive 84/5/EEC, in respect of the death of the
     covering the principal amount together with interest up                  deceased?
     to the date of the final decision.
                                                                       III. If the answer to Question I is that Ireland was in breach
—    (In the alternative) The Commission is not entitled to                   of its obligations, can the Cork Circuit Court proceed
     demand from the Member State concerned default interest                  directly to an award of Frankovich damages against the
     on amounts which the State has already paid to the                       State without applying the Directive against the defaulting


title: Case C-384/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of 28 August 2000 in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtschaftskammer, Hanover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe and Irmtraut Bredemeier

text:
23.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/5
The legislation adopted by the Italian authorities on 18 May            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 merely regulates the activities of bodies and organisations
with the purpose of drawing up, adopting and putting into
operation plans for water catchment areas for improving                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
surface waters as well as drawing up, adopting and putting into         in Case C-335/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
operation intervention programmes with the same objective.              on 3 February 1999, but the Federal Länder of Mecklenburg-
However, it does not directly adopt any specific plan. Accord-          Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony,
ingly, it is no more than a proposal for the implementation of          Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein have not to date taken
the obligations under Article 4(2) of the directive rather than         the necessary measures under Article 11 of the directive
actual implementation thereof.                                          concerning the drawing-up of emergency plans.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26.                                               (2) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000, p. 16.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisch-
                                                                        en Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of 28 August 2000
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtsch-
                                                                        aftskammer, Hanover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe
                                                                                and Irmtraut Bredemeier
Action brought on 18 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                        (Case C-384/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/09)
                         (Case C-383/00)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of 28 August 2000 by the
                         (2000/C 372/08)                                Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Adminis-
                                                                        trative Court for Lower Saxony), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 20 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtschafts-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   kammer, Hanover: joined parties Wilhelm Wieggrebe and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            Irmtraut Bredemeier on the following question:
ties on 18 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Is an agricultural holding received through ‘similar means’
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        within the meaning of Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC)
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
                                                                        amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (2) of
                                                                        13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), where, following expiry
                                                                        of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by the producer
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, (3) the holding is leased
                                                                        by him to the husband of the designated heir before 29 June
                                                                        1989 on conditions more favourable than normal market
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to        conditions?
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                (1) OJ L 90, p. 13.
      dangerous substances, and in particular Article 11 thereof,       (2) OJ L 150, p. 35.
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its          (3) OJ L 131, p. 1.
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case T-68/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — SGL Carbon v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Default interest)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — SGL Carbon v Commission
   (Case T-68/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Default interest)
   (2008/C 301/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: SGL Carbon AG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and A. von Bonin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, and H.-J. Freund, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products) and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1999 in Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association regime for overseas countries and territories - Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC - Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 - Proceedings for interim measures - Extension of interim measures)

text:
4.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 352/35
European Communities (Agents: Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche                   Sugar v Commission[1999] ECR II-0000, and in accordance
and Christine Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment                   with the first paragraph of the operative part therof, operation of
of the decision of the Commission of 17 October 1997                         Article 108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991
relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the                    on the association of the overseas countries and territories with
applicant during a mission to Ispra, Italy, from 16 September                the European Community, of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1997 to 20 September 1997 — the Court of First Instance                      2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import
(Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,                   licences for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a                 1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating
judgment on 7 October 1999, in which it:                                     products and of the Commission Decision of 23 December 1997
                                                                             (VI/51329) is suspended with respect to Emesa Sugar (Free
1. Dismisses the application.                                                Zone) NV.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          2. Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV is authorised to import into the
                                                                             Community milled sugar originating in the overseas countries
(1) OJ 1998 C 312.                                                           and territories (OCT), within the meaning of Article 6 of Annex
                                                                             II to Decision 91/482 and, in accordance with the conditions
                                                                             set out in the version of that Decision which remained in force
                                                                             until 30 November 1997, subject to the following conditions
                                                                             and restrictions:
                                                                             — the imports hereby authorised are subject to the provisions of
                                                                                Decision 91/482 applicable before the entry into force
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                      of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997
                            INSTANCE                                              amending at mid-term Decision 91/482 and, in particular,
                                                                                to the obligation to obtain an import licence in accordance
                                                                                with Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                      of 29 September 1999                                        No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common
                                                                                detailed rules for the application of the system of import and
                                                                                export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural
in Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                                products, to the obligation to obtain an EUR-I certificate
        Commission of the European Communities                                    and to lodge security of 3 euro/tonne, which will be released
                                                                                if importation is effected in conformity with the import
(Association regime for overseas countries and territories —                      licence;
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)
No 2553/97 — Proceedings for interim measures — Exten-
                     sion of interim measures)                               — the maximum volume authorised for importation is 7 500
                                                                                tonnes for the period between 31 October 1999 and
                                                                                29 February 2000; after 29 February 2000, Emesa Sugar
                          (1999/C 352/63)                                         (Free Zone) NV may continue to import to the Community
                                                                                sugar delivered to it free on board (FOB) before that date,
                                                                                provided that the volume imported does not exceed the ceiling
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                 of 7 500 tonnes and that importation is conducted in
                                                                                accordance with the conditions herein set out;
In Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established
at Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by Gerard van der Wal,                     — OCT originating sugar imported into the Community must
Advocate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                        be sold at a price which is at least equal to the intervention
Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     price referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by the                            (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Government of Aruba, represented by Pierre V.F. Bos and                           organisation of the markets in the sugar sector;
Marco M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
11 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European Com-                       — Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV may import into the Com-
munities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by the Council                       munity OCT originating sugar, provided that it lodges
of the European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus                              security in the form of a bank guarantee in the amount of
Houttuin), the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Mónica López-Monis                      USD 28 per tonne of the volume of sugar which it wishes to
Gallego) and the French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) —                       import in conformity with the present Order; the security
application for extension of the interim relief granted to the                    must be lodged no later than the day on which the sugar is
applicant by the President of the Court of First Instance in his                  declared to the customs authorities and it must cover the
Order of 30 April 1999 in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa Sugar v                         tonnage which enters customs at that time; the amount to be
Commission [1999] ECR II-0000 — the President of the Court                        lodged by way of security per tonne of sugar will be increased
of First Instance made an order on 29 September 1999, the                         or reduced in the light of:
operative part of which is as follows:
1. On the grounds set out in the Order of the President of the Court              — any rise or fall in the intervention price referred to in
    of First Instance of 30 April 1999 in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa                      Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 1785/81;
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/36                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
        — any rise or fall in the guaranteed price referred to in           residing at Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
             Article 5(4) of Protocol No 8 to the Fourth ACP-EC             of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
             Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989;                at the Chambers of A. May.
        For the purposes of reducing or increasing the amount of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
        security to be lodged reference shall be made to the
        intervention price or the guaranteed price for 31 October           — declare the present application admissible;
        1999;
                                                                            — annul the defendant’s decision of 15 July 1999;
    — the security lodged shall be released in full, by Order of the
        Court hearing the application for interim relief, in favour of      — grant the applicant’s claim for damages and order the
        the Community, should the Court of Justice, in its forth-                 defendant to pay the applicant the sum of BEF 7 323 594,
        coming judgment in Case C-17/98, declare during the                       alternatively such sum as the Court shall consider fair and
        period between 31 October 1999 and 29 February 2000                       reasonable;
        that Article 108b is not invalid;
                                                                            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    — for the duration of the interim measure so ordered, Emesa
        Sugar (Free Zone) NV may not submit any application for
        an import licence pursuant to Regulation No 2553/97.                Pleas in law and main arguments
3. In the event that the Court of Justice delivers its judgment in Case
    C-17/98 during the period between 31 October 1999 and                   The applicant, who was at the material time a member of
    29 February 2000:                                                       the temporary staff (interpreter) of the Commission, was
                                                                            unsuccessful in competition COM/LA/2/89 and was dismissed.
    — the present proceedings for interim relief (registered as Case
        T-44/98 R II) shall recommence should the Court of Justice          His application contesting the decision of the selection board
        hold that Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is not invalid,           was upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
        and the parties shall be called upon to make known their            annulled on the ground that it was based on an unlawful
        views on the judgment of the Court of Justice; the decision of      decision of the selection board (Case T-51/91).
        the Court hearing the application for interim relief in the
        present proceedings shall be embodied in a new Order, it            The Court of First Instance did not declare the competition
        being indicated that Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV may                 void as such, but in paragraph 65 of its judgment in Case
        continue to import into the Community sugar which has               T-43/91 it stated that the applicant’s rights would be
        been delivered to it free on board (FOB) before the date of         adequately protected ‘if the institution seeks a just solution in
        delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice (i) subject to     his case’.
        a ceiling of 7 500 tonnes (ii) within the period expiring on
        29 February 2000 and (iii) in conformity with the conditions
        set out in the second paragraph of the operative part of the        In consequence of the decision dismissing him, which was
        present Order;                                                      annulled by the Court of First Instance, the applicant has
                                                                            suffered material and non-material damage. By letter of 28 May
    — the present Order shall continue to produce its effects until         1998 the applicant’s lawyer pointed out that agreement had
        29 February 2000 should the Court of Justice hold that              still not been reached between the applicant and the defendant
        Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is invalid and should the           concerning, inter alia, that issue, and requested the defendant
        Court of First Instance have failed by that date to give            in that connection to adopt a decision pursuant to Article 90(1)
        judgment in the main proceedings (registered as Case                of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
        T-44/98).
                                                                            By letter of 1 October 1998 the defendant adopted the same
4. Costs are reserved.                                                      position as before. Consequently, by letter of 31 December
                                                                            1998, the applicant submitted a complaint pursuant to
                                                                            Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The defendant rejected
                                                                            that complaint by letter of 15 July 1999.
                                                                            As a result of the aforesaid judgments of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance of 17 March 1994, a process of negotiation
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer                           commenced between the parties, from which the defendant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        has unilaterally withdrawn with regard to numerous points; it
                                                                            is now purporting to describe that unilateral withdrawal as an
                          (Case T-209/99)                                   ‘act adversely affecting’ the applicant, and is seeking to rely on
                                                                            it in order to show that the claim brought in the present
                                                                            proceedings concerns a ‘new application’, so that the applicant
                          (1999/C 352/64)                                   is out of time with his claim for compensation. According to
                                                                            the applicant, the defendant is unlawfully attempting to evade
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           its obligation to pay compensation for the damage suffered by
                                                                            him as a result of the decisions annulled in Cases T-43/91 and
                                                                            T-51/91.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer,