title: Case T-137/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — CBI v Commission (State aid — Public hospitals — Funding granted by the Belgian authorities to public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network — Decision at the end of the preliminary phase — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Service of general economic interest — Definition of the public service mandate — Proportionality of the public service compensation)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — CBI v Commission
   (Case T-137/10) (1)

   (State aid - Public hospitals - Funding granted by the Belgian authorities to public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network - Decision at the end of the preliminary phase - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Service of general economic interest - Definition of the public service mandate - Proportionality of the public service compensation)
   2012/C 399/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Coordination bruxelloise d’Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Slater, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: M. Noort and M. de Ree and subsequently by: M. Noort, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents); Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Belgium); Municipality of Anderlecht (Belgium); Municipality of Etterbeek (Belgium); Municipality of Ixelles (Belgium); City of Brussels (Belgium); and Municipality of Saint-Gilles (Belgium) (represented by: P. Slegers and A. Lepièce, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8120 of 28 December 2009, concerning State aid NN54/2009 granted by the Kingdom of Belgium for the financing of the public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network in the Région Bruxelles-Capitale.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 8120 of 28 December 2009, concerning State aid NN54/2009 granted by the Kingdom of Belgium for the financing of the public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network in the Région Bruxelles-Capitale;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its won costs and those incurred by the Coordination bruxelloise d’Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI);

               3.

               Orders the French Republic; Kingdom of the Netherlands; Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Belgium); Municipality of Anderlecht (Belgium); Municipality of Etterbeek (Belgium); Municipality of Ixelles (Belgium); City of Brussels (Belgium); and Municipality of Saint-Gilles (Belgium) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-550/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Reasonable period — Absence of key controls — Extrapolation of the findings of default)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-550/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Reasonable period - Absence of key controls - Extrapolation of the findings of default))
   (2016/C 007/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, K. Skelly, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case T-569/14: Action brought on 30 July 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/12

         Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)
   (Case T-569/14)
   2014/C 361/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 122/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  961

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-467/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
C 323/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           previously concluded, the Kingdom of Denmark has, by
                                                                                not rescinding those provisions of the said previously-
                                                                                concluded agreements which are incompatible with the
                        of 5 November 2002                                        EC Treaty, especially Article 52 thereof, and with second-
                                                                                ary law, or by failing to take all necessary legal steps to
                                                                                that end, failed to comply with its obligations under
in Case C-467/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)
                                                                                Article 307 EC),
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                 the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
                                                                            Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport                  Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
                                                                            Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty
                        (now Article 10 EC))                                ber 2002, in which it:
                           (2002/C 323/02)                                  1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
                                                                                the renegotiation of the air transport agreement between the
                                                                                Kingdom of Denmark and the United States of America of
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                16 December 1944, international commitments with the
                                                                                United States of America
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
                                                                                nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
                                                                                munity routes,
In Case C-467/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Benyon and H. P. Hartvig) v Kingdom of Denmark                        —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
(Agent: J. Molde), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands                              use or used in Danish territory, and
(Agents: M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel): Application for:
                                                                                —     recognising the United States of America as having the
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having                             right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded, in 1995,                       where air carriers designated by the Kingdom of Denmark
      an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of                               are not owned by the latter or by Danish nationals, the
      America in the field of air transport, the Kingdom of                             Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations
      Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC                         under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and
      Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now Article 10 EC)                          Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) thereof,                             Article 43 EC) and under Council Regulation (EEC)
      and also under secondary law adopted pursuant to                                  No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air
      that Treaty, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC)                           services and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of
      No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers                           24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/                          reservation systems, as amended by Council Regulation
      92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                           (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993;
      to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8),
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992
      on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15),           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989
      on a code of conduct for computerised reservation
      systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council                  3.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;
      Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ
      1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/
      93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the                         4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
      allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14,
      p. 1); and,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
—     in the alternative, in relation to the remaining provisions
      of the agreement of 1944/1954, a declaration that, in so
      far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded as having
      radically amended and thus replaced the agreements


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1999 in Case C-342/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I): Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade mark law - Likelihood of confusion - Aural similarity)

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 246/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 22 June 1999
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-342/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          of 17 June 1999                                  the Landgericht München I): Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer &
                                                                                Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (1)
in Case C-166/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade mark law — Likelihood of
from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Foix): Société                                       confusion — Aural similarity)
Critouridienne de Distribution (Socridis) v Receveur
                     Principal des Douanes (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/05)
(Internal taxation — Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 90 EC) — Directives 92/83/EEC and                                           (Language of the case: German)
     92/84/EEC — Different taxation of wine and beer)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (1999/C 246/04)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-342/97: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                    (Language of the case: French)                         (ex Article 177) from the Landgericht München I (Munich I
                                                                           Regional Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Lloyd Schuhfa-
                                                                           brik Meyer & Co. GmbH and Klijsen Handel BV — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws
                   in the European Court Reports)                          of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
                                                                           p. 1) — the Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President
                                                                           of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers, acting as President,
In Case C-166/98: Reference to the Court under Article 234                 J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Man-
EC (ex Article 177) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de                  cini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
Foix, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
pending before that court between Société Critouridienne de                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Distribution (Socridis) and Receveur Principal des Douanes —               on 22 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
on the validity of Council, Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21)                  It is possible that mere aural similarity between trace marks may
and Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                  create a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b)
approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and                   of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29) — the Court (Fifth              approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                  The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathe-                  the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. In
let (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von              determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 assessing whether it is highly distinctive, it is necessary to make a
judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it ruled:                               global assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to
                                                                           identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as
                                                                           coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those
                                                                           goods or services from those of other undertakings. In making that
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor capable     assessment, account should be taken of all relevant factors and, in
of affecting the validity of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19             particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the
October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties       fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Council Directive 92/84/EEC         goods or services for which it has been registered. It is not possible to
of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty        state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.                                        relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the
                                                                           relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive
                                                                           character.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-240/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): proceedings brought by Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Insurance and reinsurance transactions)

text:
30.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 186/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Community as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                             (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, Presi-
                                                                             dent of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
                         of 8 March 2001                                     R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
                                                                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
in Case C-68/99: Commission of the European Communi-                         on 8 March 2001, in which it:
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application;
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment —                  2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
Freedom to provide services — Social security — Regulation                         the costs.
(EEC) No 1408/71 — Funding of the social insurance scheme
for self-employed artists and journalists — Contribution                     (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
collected from undertakings which market the work of artists
and journalists, calculated on the basis of the remuneration
paid to the authors — Account taken of remuneration paid
to artists and journalists subject to the social security
              legislation of another Member State)
                          (2001/C 186/01)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                      (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            in Case C-240/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Regeringsrätten): proceedings brought by Försäkring-
In Case C-68/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       saktiebolaget Skandia (publ) (1)
(Agents: P. Hillenkamp and A. Buschmann) v Federal Republic
of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) —                   (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Insurance and
application for a declaration that, by applying Paragraph 23 et                                  reinsurance transactions)
seq. of the Künstlersozialversicherungsgesetz (Law on social
insurance for artists) to artists and journalists who reside in                                        (2001/C 186/02)
another EU Member State and normally pursue a self-employed
activity both in that other Member State and in the Federal
Republic of Germany, and who are thus exclusively subject, as                                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
regards the social security system, to the legislation of the
Member State in the territory of which they reside, the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Articles 51, 52 and/or 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                                          in the European Court Reports)
amendment, Articles 42 EC and 43 EC and/or 49 EC) and
Title II, specifically the first sentence of Article 14a(2) in               In Case C-240/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
conjunction with Article 13(1) and (2)(b), of Council Regu-                  EC from the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court)
lation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                      Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                before that court brought by Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   (publ) — on the interpretation of Article 13B(a) of Sixth
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          30.6.2001
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First               which it:
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio,                  1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it                     comply with Council Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996
has ruled:                                                                       amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of com-
                                                                                pound feedingstuffs and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the
A commitment assumed by an insurance company to carry out, in                    circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,
return for remuneration at market rates, the business activities of              74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing
another insurance company, which is its 100 % subsidiary and which               Directive 77/101/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
would continue to conclude insurance contracts in its own name, does             fulfil its obligations under those directives;
not constitute an insurance transaction within the meaning of              2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:             (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
uniform basis of assessment.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 8 March 2001                                 the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de
                                                                           Laat v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzek-
in Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                                       eringen (1)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                           (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure             No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — ‘Partially unemployed’
       to transpose Directives 96/24/EC and 96/25/EC)                                                     — Meaning)
                           (2001/C 186/03)                                                              (2001/C 186/04)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-444/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
G. Kanellopoulos and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a                    rechtbank te Roermond, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            in the proceedings pending before that court between R. J. de
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 Laat and Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzeker-
Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996 amending Directive                    ingen — on the interpretation of Article 71(1)(a) of Council
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
1996 L 125, p. 33) and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,             self-employed persons and to members of their families
74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Direc-                   moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
tive 77/101/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 35), the Hellenic Republic              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those         1983 L 230, p. 6), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 1999 in Case T-147/98: Karola Gluiber v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
19.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 174/5
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission
                                                                          contained in the letter dated 9 Septernber 1998 addressed to
                         of 16 March 1999                                 the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Spain to the
                                                                          European Union, concerning the adoption of draft legislation
                                                                          intended to give effect, in national law, to Article 11 of
in Case T-147/98: Karola Gluiber v Council of the Euro-                   Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-                        Communities regarding transfers of pension rights — the
                                ties (1)                                  President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                          4 February 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                          (1999/C 174/10)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
In Case T-147/98: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim
(Germany), represented by Wolfgang Clausen and Wulf Claus-
en, Rechtsanwälte, Kiel (Germany), with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker & Braun,
16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities — application
for annulment of discriminatory measures taken against the
applicant by the Federal Republic of Germany, alternatively
for a declaration that the Council and the Commission should                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
have taken steps to contest those measures — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                                        of 9 March 1999
Registrar, made an order on 16 March 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                              in Case T-206/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
2. The applicant is ordered to bear her own costs.                                           (Manifest inadmissibility)
(1) Notice of the application has not been published.                                             (1999/C 174/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-206/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Jean-Marie Bissieres, company chairman, residing at Croix
                             INSTANCE                                     Blanche (France), SA Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma,
                                                                          established at Penne D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech,
                                                                          company chairman, residing at Canet (France), represented by
                        of 4 February 1999                                Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
in Case T-196/98 R: Eduardo Pefia Abizanda and others v                   v Commission of the European Communities — application
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         for an order of the Court allowing a rebate application lodged
                                                                          by the first applicant with the French customs authorities on
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility of the                  23 October 1998 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
                            main action)                                  originating in Poland — the Court (Fourth Chamber), compo-
                                                                          sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili and
                                                                          P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                          (1999/C 174/11)
                                                                          9 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-196/98 R: Eduardo Peña Abizanda and 105 other                  2. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,
and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Madrid Bar, with an                  (1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.
address for service at 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi
Valsesia, Julian Currall and José Rivas Andres) — application


title: Case C-45/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Catania — Prima Sezione Civile, by order of that Court of 19 January 2003 in the case of Catania Commissary General of Police against Oxana Dem'Yanenko

text:
C 83/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             5.4.2003
            that still to be assessed; in the further alternative,          —      Infringement of the preferential status of the OCT: the
            order the Community to pay compensation to be                          Court of First Instance erred in its determination of the
            determined on an equitable basis by the Court of                       relevant facts to such an extent that its appraisal in the
            Justice, plus annual interest of 8 % from the date of                  grounds of its judgment here referred to is, in the light of
            the application at first instance to the date of full                  the procedural documents, incomprehensible.
            and final payment;
                                                                            (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000
                                                                                introducing safeguard measures for imports from the overseas
(3) order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of                        countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
      proceedings, in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules                 cumulation of origin (OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39).
      of Procedure.                                                         (2 ) — Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the
                                                                                association of the overseas countries and territories with the
                                                                                European Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
—     Breach of Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision ( 2): the                Catania — Prima Sezione Civile, by order of that Court of
      Court of First Instance failed to take into account the fact          19 January 2003 in the case of Catania Commissary
      that Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision constitutes a                         General of Police against Oxana Dem’Yanenko
      derogation from the prohibition in Article 101 of the
      OCT Decision of import duties and measures having
      equivalent effect. As in the case of every derogation which                                       (Case C-45/03)
      departs from the principal rule, and in this case from the
      objective of the successive OCT Decisions, this derogation
      must be narrowly construed and applied. The ‘wide                                                (2003/C 83/14)
      discretion’ of the Commission and the limited appraisal
      of the Community judicature on which the Court of
      First Instance based itself are incompatible with such a
      possibility of applying Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      that is limited to exceptional cases (Article 109(1) of the           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Catania
      OCT Decision as an ‘emergency brake’);                                — Prima Sezione Civile (Catania District Court, First Civil
                                                                            Chamber) of 19 January 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                            on 7 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
—     Failure to provide reasons: it was wrong in law and also, in          of Catania Commissary General of Police against Oxana
      light of the documents on the case-file, incomprehensible             Dem’Yanenko on the following questions:
      and/or indicative of inadequate reasoning that the Court
      of First Instance should hold (i) that any additional                 1.     Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
      imports of OCT sugar under the EC/OCT cumulation of                          and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC ( 1) of 25 February
      origin regime would increase the amount of surplus sugar                     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
      on the Community market, and (ii) that ‘additional                           for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
      imports’ within the meaning of (i) impose an extra burden                    Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
      on the Community budget;                                                     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that any foreigner deported
                                                                                from a Member State of the European Community is
                                                                                entitled to have his deportation order reviewed before it
—     Breach of Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision: the Court                      is enforced by an impartial authority different from that
      of First Instance erred in law in its construction of the                    which adopted the order?
      terms ‘difficulties’ and ‘deterioration’ and consequently
      erred in law in its application of those terms. The
      appellant refers to its application at first instance;                2.     Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
                                                                                and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
                                                                                1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
                                                                                for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
—     Breach of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: there is no                    Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
      quantitative correlation between the quota in Regulation                     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
      No 465/2000 and ‘difficulties’ and/or ‘deterioration’. In                    be interpreted as meaning that it is unacceptable and
      the light of the historical quantities, the measure is also                  unlawful for the police of a Member State of the European
      entirely arbitrary and inequitable;                                          Community, without prior review by any other authority,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 83/9
     forcibly to arrest and deport any person whom they                 6.     Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     unilaterally consider not to be entitled to remain within                 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
     that State, and to do so within such a period of time and                 1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
     in such a way that their action escape any practical and                  for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     effective review by any third-party impartial authority                   Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
     whether before, during or after their actions?                            the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
                                                                               be interpreted as meaning that Articles 13(3), (4) and (5)a
                                                                               of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, as amended
                                                                               are inconsistent with them?
3.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8              (1 ) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February                    ordination of special measures concerning the movement and
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention                  residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                      public policy, public security or public health (OJ P 56 of
     Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 — and                       4.4.1964, p. 850).
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
     be interpreted as meaning that it is illogical and unlawful
     for a Member State of the European Community to lay
     down a system for the judicial review of orders for the
     deportation of foreigners and of police action taken to
     execute such orders which, essentially, has no effect on
     the consequences which flow from such orders or on the
     actions taken to execute them, and is thus nothing more            Appeal brought on 7 February 2003 by Mr Cwik against
     than a semblance of legal protection, wholly deprived of           the judgment delivered on 26 November 2002 by the
     any practical effect or usefulness?                                Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-103/01 between Mr
                                                                            Cwik and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-47/03 P)
4.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February                                          (2003/C 83/15)
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 November
     be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful for a Member         2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
     State of the European Community to lay down provisions             of the European Communities in Case T-103/01 Cwik v
     governing orders for the deportation of foreigners and             Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     the execution of such orders in such a way as to preclude          European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Mr Cwik,
     the person deported from actually exercising any right of          represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
     asylum?                                                            in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.     declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
5.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention             2.     accordingly:
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and                         (a)   set aside the contested judgment;
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
     be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful, in the sense               (b) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so
     that it disproportionately and unfairly denies and limits                       that it may rule, first, on the application seeking the
     the right to personal liberty accorded to all persons in                        annulment of the decision of the Commission of
     the European Community, for a Member State of the                               13 June 2000 transferring the applicant from the
     Community to provide that orders for the deportation of                         ‘Economic Information, Publications and Docu-
     foreigners in possession of a valid passport be forcibly                        mentation’ Unit, which, following restructuring,
     executed immediately (in the sense of within a few                              subsequently became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’
     minutes) following their notification to the foreigner                          Unit (CFIN-04 under the direction of Mr Blackie), to
     concerned, even in the absence of genuine and specific                          the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
     reasons of public security or public order justifying                           Administration’ Unit, (ECFIN-01 under the direction
     recourse to such physical coercion?                                             of Mr Verhaeven), and (ii) on the claim for damages;


title: Case C-498/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/12

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-498/17)
   (2017/C 338/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Sanfrutos, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to close down, as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8 of the directive, a permit to continue to operate, or by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that sites which have obtained a permit to continue to operate comply with the requirements laid down in that directive, with the exception of the requirements set out in point 1 of Annex I to the directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 14(b) and Article 14(c) of the directive, in so far as concerns the following landfill sites: (1) Avigliano (Loc. Serre Le Brecce); (2) Ferrandina (Loc. Venita); (3) Genzano di Lucania (Loc. Matinella); (4) Latronico (Loc. Torre); (5) Lauria (Loc. Carpineto); (6) Maratea (Loc. Montescuro); (7) Moliterno (Loc. Tempa La Guarella); (8) Potenza (Loc. Montegrosso-Pallareta: site scheduled for closure in September 2016); (9) Potenza (Loc. Montegrosso-Pallareta), site said never to have been used; (10) Rapolla (Loc. Albero in Piano); (11) Roccanova (Loc. Serre); (12) Sant’Angelo Le Fratte (Loc. Farisi); (13) Campotosto (Loc. Reperduso); (14) Capistrello (Loc. Trasolero); (15) Francavilla (Valle Anzuca); (16) L’Aquila (Loc. Ponte delle Grotte); (17) Andria (D’Oria G.& C. s.n.c); (18) Canosa (CO.BE.MA); (19) Bisceglie (CO.GE.SER); (20) Andria (F.lli Acquaviva); (21) Trani (BAT-Igea s.r.l.); (22) Torviscosa (Società Caffaro);

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to close down, as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8 of the directive, a permit to continue to operate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 14(b) of that directive, in so far as concerns the following landfill sites: (23) Atella (Loc. Cafaro); (24) Corleto Perticara (Loc. Tempa Masone); (25) Marsico Nuovo (Loc. Galaino); (26) Matera (Loc. La Martella); (27) Pescopagano (Loc. Domacchia); (28) Rionero in Volture (Loc. Ventaruolo); (29) Salandra (Loc. Piano del Governo); (30) San Mauro Forte (Loc. Priati); (31) Senise (Loc. Palomabara); (32) Tito (Loc. Aia dei Monaci); (33) Tito (Loc. Valle del Forno); (34) Capestrano (Loc. Tirassegno); (35) Castellalto (Loc. Colle Coccu);(36) Castelvecchio Calvisio (Loc. Termine); (37) Corfinio (Loc. Cannucce); (38) Corfinio (Loc. Case querceto);(39) Mosciano S. Angelo (Loc. Santa Assunta); (40) S. Omero (Loc. Ficcadenti); (41) Montecorvino Pugliano (Loc. Parapoti); (42) San Bartolomeo in Galdo (Loc. Serra Pastore); (43) Trivigano (ex Cava Zof); (44) Torviscosa (Loc. La Valletta);

               —

               order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste makes provision for ‘existing’ landfill sites, that is landfills which had already been granted a permit or which were already in operation before 16 July 2001, the date by which the Directive 1999/31/EC was to be transposed into national law pursuant to Article 18(1) of the directive. With regard to such landfill sites, Article 14 of the directive provides that, by 16 July 2009, the competent authorities of the Member State were to have either carried out the work necessary for the conditioning of the site, in order to ensure that it complies with the requirements laid down in the directive (Article 14(c)), or to have definitively closed down the site (second sentence of Article 14(b)).
   The Commission is of the view that it is apparent from the information provided by the Italian Republic during the pre-litigation stage of the procedure that neither of those two obligations has been complied with in so far as concerns 44 existing landfill sites, with the result that, in respect of those sites, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 14(b) and under Article 14(c) of Directive 1999/31/EC.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 June 1999 in Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Award of an invalidity pension - Relationship between the procedures provided for in Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/27
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Brussels, represented by Georgios Sakellaropoulos, of the
                                                                           Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 15 June 1999                                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Maria
                                                                           Condu Durante) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia                   of the Commission of 12 March 1997 rejecting the application
    v the Commission of the European Communities (1)                       for the award of an invalidity pension — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
(Action for annulment — Commission decision — State aid                    President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
    — Action brought by a sub-State body — Admissible)                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                           on 3 June 1999, in which it:
                          (1999/C 246/54)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as regards the first plea and
                                                                                as unfounded as regards the second plea;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia,
represented by Renato Fusco, of the Trieste Bar, and Maurizio              (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
Maresca, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at 36 Rue Wiltz, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz and Paolo Stan-
canelli and Massimo Moretto) — application for the annulment
of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concern-
ing aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to
road haulage companies in the Region (OJ 1997 L 66, p. 18)
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W.
Bellamy, R.M. Moura Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,                                     of 10 June 1999
gave a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it:
                                                                           in Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc v Commission of the
1. Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Com-                             European Communities (1)
     mission of the European Communities;
2. Orders that the action on the merits shall proceed;                     (Arbitration clause — Obligation of payment — Non-
                                                                                performance)
3. Orders that the costs be reserved.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/56)
(1) OJ 1998 C 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-
                                                                           Mombello (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advo-
                                                                           cate with rights of audience before the Corte di Cassazione,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: José Luis Iglesias
                           of 3 June 1999                                  Buhigues, Barry Doherty and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application,
                                                                           pursuant to Article 153 EA, for compensation for damage
                                                                           allegedly suffered in connection with a contract concluded
in Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios v Commission of                       with the Community — the Court of First Instance (Second
                 the European Communities (1)                              Chamber), composed of A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
(Officials — Award of an invalidity pension — Relationship                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999, in
between the procedures provided for in Articles 73 and 78 of               which it:
                       the Staff Regulations)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action;
                          (1999/C 246/55)
                                                                           2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
In Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case T-258/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes against the European Parliament

text:
9.11.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 274/27
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’ against the                       Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Hendrikus
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                                   Boukes against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-258/02)
                         (Case T-257/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/49)
                         (2002/C 274/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          10 September 2002 by Hendrikus Boukes, domiciled in
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    Waldbredimus (Luxembourg), represented by Eric Boigelot,
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘K’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:                   European Parliament, Julian Priestley, on 4 January 2002
                                                                                dismissing the applicant’s request of 4 October 2001
                                                                                concerning the recognition of his marriage by the AIPN;
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
      claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage             —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
      of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;             plaint, brought in accordance with Article 90(2) of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations on 27 February 2002 and registered on
                                                                                1 March 2002, to which the European Parliament has
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of                       still not replied.
      compensation for the damage she has suffered and will
      in future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all            —     in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.
      necessary reservations, together with default interest at
      the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
      the date of payment;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal by the
                                                                          AIPN to take account of the formalisation of his partnership,
                                                                          treated as a civil marriage under Netherlands law and which
                                                                          legally records and recognises the family life that he leads in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the context of a stable relationship with his partner, for the
                                                                          purpose of having it treated in the same way as marriage under
                                                                          the Staff Regulations.
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate her for the non-
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of her occu-               In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims:
pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which she has                 —     breach of Article F(1), and (2) of the Treaty on the
received compensation.                                                          European Union and Article 3(2) EC;
                                                                          —     breach of Article 1a(1) and the second paragraph of
                                                                                Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the provisions
The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are                      of the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and
similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of                      reimbursement of expenses, allowances and pension
Justice.                                                                        scheme;
                                                                          —     breach of Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Charter of
                                                                                Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
—     breach of Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European                    The applicant submits first of all that the defendant wrongly
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                  assumed that the arrangements in the present case could affect
      Fundamental Freedoms;                                              trade between States. The Austrian banks’ arrangements were
                                                                         restricted exclusively to Austria. Nor were they liable, given
—     Disregard of general principles of law, such as non-               the nature of the service in question, to partition the Austrian
      discrimination and equal treatment, equal pay for men              market. There is therefore no infringement of Article 81
      and women, respect for private and family life, the                EC. Furthermore, there is no basis for the Commission’s
      principle that the civil status of Community nationals is          requirement to cease the infringement in the future. The
      to be governed by the legislation of their Member                  Commission itself found that the applicant had brought the
      State, proper administration, the protection of legitimate         arrangements to an end on 24 June 1998.
      expectations.
                                                                         The applicant also contests the classification of the infringe-
                                                                         ment as ‘very serious’ for the purposes of the guidelines on
                                                                         the calculation of fines. When assessing the gravity of the
                                                                         infringement, the Commission disregarded in particular the
                                                                         fact that the Bankenrunden were not established by the banks
                                                                         expressly to interfere with competition but, on the contrary,
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen Zentral-                  took place over 50 years in accordance with Austrian law and
bank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-                      — to the end — with the cooperation of State authorities.
            mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-259/02)                                 Furthermore, the applicant contests the calculation of the fine
                                                                         imposed on it. In disregard of the links in the rural cooperative
                        (2002/C 274/50)                                  sector and inconsistently with settled case-law, the Com-
                                                                         mission attributed to the applicant market shares of undertak-
                                                                         ings in which it had no stake and whose market conduct it
                  (Language of the Case: German)                         could not determine. In addition, the Commission rejected all
                                                                         mitigating grounds put forward without considering them
                                                                         sufficiently. Finally, the Commission misapplied the Leniency
                                                                         Notice ( 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen
                                                                         (1 ) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
Zentralbank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vien-               in cartel cases (OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4).
na, represented by S. Völcker, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002
      (C(2002)2091 final) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
—     in     the    alternative,     reduce     the      fine    of
      EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant in the                     Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Bank Austria
      defendant’s decision;                                              Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-260/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (2002/C 274/51)
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed                                        (Language of the Case: German)
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until                    European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Bank
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks                  Austria Creditanstalt AG, established in Vienna, represented
concerned.                                                               by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Lawyers.


title: Case T-146/13: Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/25

         Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology v Commission
   (Case T-146/13)
   2013/C 123/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology LLC (Shaoxing, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590);

               —

               Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1);

               —

               And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law identical to that raised in Case T-143/13 Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission.


title: Case T-258/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/44

         Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)
   (Case T-258/16)
   (2016/C 251/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GINRAW’ — Application for registration No 12 431 681

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1583/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark;

               —

               order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-183/97)

text:
C 271/18              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
Action brought on 13 June 1997 by Maurizio Munaro                        Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, with an address for
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    service at 9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil (France ).
                          ( Case T-180/97)
                            ( 97/C 271 /29 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 (Language of the case: French)                          — annul the letter of the Secretary General of the
                                                                             Commission of 21 May 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1997
by Maurizio Munaro, residing in Boussu ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              The applicants challenge the decision of the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                      not to take action on their complaint, concerning the
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                               alleged failure of the French authorities to fulfil their
                                                                         obligations under Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                         without examining certain documents which they consider
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             to be essential to prove the infringements complained of.
                                                                         In support of their action for annulment, they plead
                                                                         manifest and serious failure to observe :
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 19 96
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                        — the fundamental rights recognized under the European
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                               Convention on Human Rights,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     — the status of res judicata of the judgment delivered by
     adopted by the Commission on 3 February 1997,                           the Court of Justice on 14 July 1988 in Case 298/87,
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         — the settled case-law concerning the principles of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                  liability of Member States for the whole of the harm
                                                                             caused to an individual by breaches of Community
                                                                             law for which they are responsible, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         — the principle of equality of arms, which would militate
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                     against the Commission's being able to exclude from
relied upon in Case T- 16/97 ( J ).                                          proceedings a number of documents which are
                                                                             essential in order to restore the rights of the parties in
                                                                             question .
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli,
Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert                      Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella
Segaud and Monique Segaud against the Commission of                      Abbate     against the     Commission of the European
                    the European Communities                                                      Communities
                          ( Case T-l 82/97 )                                                   ( Case T-183 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 271 /30 )                                                    ( 97/C 271 /31
                 (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1997
by Smanor SA, established in Saint Martin d'Ecublei                      by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and
( France ), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud, residing at                Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona,
Saint Martin d'Ecublei ( France ), represented by Laurence               Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
 ---pagebreak---  6 . 9 . 97          I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 271 / 19
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     provided additional information on the procedure
 Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                        followed, stating that the Management Committee had
                                                                     examined a 'short list', consisting of a 'main list' and a
                                                                      'reserve list', which the Commission had itself submitted.
                                                                     This Committee had approved the reduction in the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          projects originally included on the 'reserve list' for Area A.
                                                                     The removal of five projects from the 'reserve list' had
                                                                     related to those with lower marks .
— annul the decision relating to the approval of the
      projects admitted for Community financing or
      considered capable of being financed within the
      context of the specific programme of research and
      technological development, including demonstration,            In support of their submissions, the applicants contend in
      in the field of 'marine science and technology' ( 1994         particular that the procedure followed by the Commission
      to 1998 ), and consequently annul the decision to              constituted an abuse of power and breach of the principle
      exclude the Posible project coordinated by Carla               of non-discrimination. They stress in this connection that
      Micheli, which decision was notified by the                    it is clear from a consideration of the evaluations carried
      Commission 's services by letter of 26 March 1997,             out for all the different phases that a project entitled
      received by fax on 17 April 1997 and by post on                Aosge, submitted for Area A, was evaluated twice, even
      20 May 1997,                                                   though it is evident that projects which had failed to
                                                                     obtain the minimum mark necessary to continue to the
                                                                     subsequent stage could not be allowed to be 'resubmitted '.
                                                                     However, because of this repeated examination, the Aosge
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                       project was able to obtain a mark enabling it to be
      proceedings.                                                   included on the final list even though it . had received a
                                                                     lower mark than other projects, including the Posible
                                                                     project.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, all of whom are researchers with the Ente            The applicants further argue that there has been a breach
per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente ( Institute          of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the
for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment ),                  principle of transparency in so far as the draft decision
contest the manner in which the defendant rejected the               does not contain the minimum information necessary to
project which they had submitted in connection with the              explain ( i ) why funds for one area were used to finance
specific programme of research and technological                     projects in other areas, thereby excluding a number of
development, including demonstration, in the field of                projects which had achieved significant results, as in the
marine science and technology ( MAST III), adopted                   case of Posible, ( ii ) why some projects, benefiting from an
pursuant to Council Decision 94/804/EC of 23 November                allocation of funds which differed from that indicated in
 1994 ('). It should be noted in this regard that Decision           the Council decision, were able to be included on the
94/804 establishes four separate areas of research ( A:              'main list' even though they had received lower marks
marine science; B: strategic marine research; C : marine             than other projects in another area ( for Area B and, in
technology; D : supporting initiatives ), allocating to each a       particular, Area C, projects were included on the 'main
specified amount in ecus . With regard to the detailed               list' which appreciably exceeded the funds available for
implementation of the activities thus set out, the                   those areas ), and ( iii ) why the Aosge project was evaluated
decision confers on the Commission responsibility for                twice and included on the final list, to the detriment of
implementing the MAST III programme, with the                        other projects, even though it has secured a lower mark.
assistance of a committee of representatives from the
Member States .
                                                                     It is also contended that there has been a breach of the
The project submitted by the applicants, entitled Posible,           above Council decision of 23 November 1994 inasmuch
consisted in the study of ecosystems in the Mediterranean            as, in the draft decision submitted to the Commission for
Sea and is, of those submitted, the only one which
                                                                     the 'written procedure', funds were transferred from one
involves a research study into Posidonia oceanica
                                                                     area to another, contrary to the provisional allocation of
( Sector A ).
                                                                     the available sums intended by the Council .
According to the Commission, the project was rejected on
the ground that it was necessary to select a reduced
number of projects in the light of the finances available to         The applicants conclude by claiming that' there has been a
it. The applicants point out that the Italian Ministry for           breach of the principle of objectivity and independence in
Universities and Scientific and Technological Research               so far as the list of those who attended the Committee
 ---pagebreak--- C 271 /20             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 9 . 97
meeting at which the measures proposed by the                           The applicants are of the view that they are representative
Commission's services were discussed and, presumably,                   organizations and recognized workers' representatives for
voted on indicates that those present included not only                 the purposes of French law and, accordingly, able to
representatives of the Ministries but also representatives of           defend the interests of the undertaking's workers.
research institutes with an interest in receiving financing.
                                                                        They maintain that the contested decision is vitiated by a
O OJ L 334, 22 . 12 . 1994, p . 59 .
                                                                        defective statement of reasons, inadequate description, an
                                                                        error of fact and by misuse of powers, inasmuch as they
                                                                        describe the payments as aid and, in the alternative,
                                                                        inasmuch as they describe them as aid as a whole and
                                                                        without distinction .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Comité d'Entreprise                   The decision does not provide an adequate statement of
de la Société Française de Production and Others against                reasons or grounds as regards trade between Member
       the Commission of the European Communities                       States being affected within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 )
                         ( Case T-l 89/97)                              of the EC Treaty.
                           ( 97/C 271 /32 )
                                                                        In the alternative and in the event that the description as
                                                                        aid is upheld, the applicants claim that it is very difficult
                (Language of the case: French)                          to read the contested decision with respect to whether, in
                                                                        the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                        payments in issue are lawful, since most of its reasons are
An action against the Commission of the European                        considered to be confidential . With regard to whether, in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( d ) of the EC Treaty, the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                    payments in issue are lawful, the decision is contradictory
by the Comite d'Entreprise de la Societe Fran^aise de                   and again gives an inadequate statement of reasons .
Production, whose registered office is at Bry-sur-Marne
( France ), the Syndicat National de Radio-Diffusion et de
Television SNRT-CGT, the Syndicat Unifie de Radio et de                 Finally, the applicants state that the contested decision is
Television SURT-CFDT, the Syndicat National Force                       based exclusively on criteria of an economic nature
Ouvriere de Radio-Diffusion et de Television and the                    comparing operating costs without taking account of the
Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel SNEA                    social and cultural impact of the decisions taken.
CFE-CGC, all having their registered offices in Paris,                  According to the case-law of the Court, the Commission
represented by Helene Masse-Dessen, Avocat at the                       should have, at the very least, examined such criteria .
Conseil d'Etat and at the Cour de Cassation, Paris, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 (') OJ L 95 , 10 . 4 . 1997, p . 19 .
Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande-Duchesse
Charlotte .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Jean-Francois
— annul the contested decision,                                         Aguinaga and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs and, pursuant                                              ( Case T-199/97 )
     to Article 87 ( 3 ) and 91b of the Rules of Procedure,                                           97/C 271 /33 )
     order it to pay each of the applicants the equivalent of
     ECU 20 000 in French francs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
The     contested     decision       declared    unlawful     and       Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
incompatible with the common market aid amounting to                    by Jean-Francois Aguinaga, residing in Brussels, Robert
FF 1,110 billion, granted during the period from 1993 to                Donkers, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ) and Patricia
1996 to the Societe de Production Audiovisuelle, a French               Mauguin, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
production company, on the ground that it was allocated                 Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in breach of the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 3 )             Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
of the EC Treaty (').                                                   Rue de Cessange .