title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA and Société de gestion de restauration routière SA (SG2R) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a merger compatible with the common market — Petroleum sector — Commitments — Decision refusing approval of transferees — Inadmissibility — Definitive binding act — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Procedural time-limits for reply — Error of assessment)

text:
C 135/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those of the            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000 and C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA and Société de gestion
                                                                           de restauration routière SA (SG2R) v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                           declaring a merger compatible with the common market —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Petroleum sector — Commitments — Decision refusing
                                                                           approval of transferees — Inadmissibility — Definitive
                                                                           binding act — Infringement of essential procedural require-
                          of 10 April 2003                                 ments — Procedural time-limits for reply — Error of
                                                                                assessment)
in Case T-195/00: Travelex Global and Financial Services
Ltd and Interpayment Services Ltd v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                          (2003/C 135/36)
(Non-contractual liability — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade                                        (Language of the case: French)
                 marks — Official euro symbol)
                          (2003/C 135/35)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA, established in Nancy
                                                                           (France), Société de gestion de restauration routière SA (SG2R),
                                                                           established in Nancy, represented by F. Puel and M. Troncoso
                                                                           Ferrer, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           W. Mölls, F. Siredey-Garnier and F. Lelièvre), supported by
In Case T-195/00, Travelex Global and Financial Services Ltd,              French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million) —
formerly Thomas Cook Group Ltd, established in London                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(United Kingdom), Interpayment Services Ltd, established in                of 13 September 2000 rejecting TotalFina Elf’s proposal
London, represented by C. Delcorde and D. Alexander, lawyers,              concerning approval of the applicants as transferees of six
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of                 motorway service stations — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and R. Z. Swift):               Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused               Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,
to the applicants by the Commission’s adoption, use and                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in
promotion of the official euro symbol, which is allegedly                  which it:
substantially identical to a graphic trade mark registered by
the applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,           1.     Dismisses the application as unfounded;
has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
1.     Dismisses the action;                                                      the Commission, including the costs relating to the application
                                                                                for interim relief.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01.
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Likelihood of confusion — Proof of use of earlier mark — Application for Community word mark ALADIN — Earlier national word mark ALADDIN — Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 July 2005
   in Case T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Likelihood of confusion - Proof of use of earlier mark - Application for Community word mark ALADIN - Earlier national word mark ALADDIN - Articles 8(1)(b) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 229/28)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-126/03: Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Aladin Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme GmbH, established in Luckenwalde (Germany) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2003 (Case R 389/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Reckitt Benckiser (España), SL, and Aladin Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2003;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep Studiefinanciering by judgment of that court of 26 September 1997 in the case of C. P. M Meeusen and Hoofddirektie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (Case C-337/97)

text:
C 357/18                EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                         22 . 11 . 97
who are to be responsible inter alia for ensuring that              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
emergency plans are drawn up for action outside                     Beroep Studiefinanciering by judgment of that court of
establishments whose industrial activity has been notified.         26 September 1997 in the case of C. P. M Meeusen and
The competent authorities are also required, pursuant to                    Hoofddirektie van de Informatie Beheer Groep
Article 7 ( 2 ), to organize, in accordance with national                                     Case C-337/97 )
regulations, inspections or other measures of control
proper to the activity in question. It is clear that for that                                  ( 97/C 357/31 )
provision to be properly implemented, the Member States
must not only designate the competent authorities but also
ensure that emergency action plans are duly drawn up and            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
that the potential effectiveness of such plans is checked, in       European Communities by a judgment of the College van
the terms laid down by the Directive .                              Beroep Studiefinanciering ( Study Finance Tribunal ) of
                                                                    26 September 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                    Registry on 29 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                    in the case of C. P. M. Meeusen and Hoofddirektie van de
Presidential Decree No 175/88 , as originally drafted,              Informatie Beheer Groep ( Governing Board of the
provided that prefects were to draw up the emergency                Information Management Group ) on the following
plans for action outside the establishments subject to              questions:
notification pursuant to Article 4 of that decree, on the
basis of the information supplied by manufacturers and an           IA. Does a situation such as that in the present case, in
investigation undertaken by the ministry for that purpose .               which the plaintiff's mother is employed by the
It also required inspections to be carried out by officials               limited company of which her husband is the director
appointed by the Ministry of the Environment and the                      and sole shareholder, preclude her from being
Ministry of Health from staff of the competent public                     regarded as a migrant worker within the meaning of
administrations or bodies .
                                                                          Article 48 of the EC Treaty and of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1612/68 (')?
The Commission considered that although such rules                        If question 1A is answered in the negative :
might appear formally capable of satisfying the
requirements of Article 7 of the Directive, they proved in          IB. In the Bernini judgment the Court held that study
practice to be entirely inadequate, since, after they had                 finance awarded by a Member State to children of
been in force for some years, very few emergency action                   workers constitutes a social advantage to a migrant
plans had actually been drawn up and inspection and                       worker, as provided for in Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation
control activities were inadequate .                                      ( EEC ) No 1612/68 , where the worker continues to
                                                                          support the child. In such a case the child may rely
                                                                          on Article 7 ( 2 ) in order to obtain study finance
                                                                          under the same conditions as are applicable to
The successive legislative amendments notified by the                    children of national workers, and in particular
Italian authorities are not capable of remedying the                      without any further requirement as to place of
situation and thereby bringing the infringements to an                    residence . Does this rule equally apply if the migrant
end .
                                                                          worker must be regarded as a frontier worker ?
                                                                    IC . Does the rule of law in Bernini, as stated in
The Commission adds that the later amendments made to                     question IB above, also apply if the child of a
the legislation implementing the Directive, by the adoption               migrant worker, as in the present case, has never
of Law No 137/97, were not such that the infringements                    lived in the Netherlands ?
complained of were brought to an end .
                                                                    2.    Must Article 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted in
                                                                          such a way that the safeguard provided for under the
                                                                          rule laid down in Bernini, as mentioned above in
The Commission considers that the requirements
concerning preparation of emergency plans for action                      question IB, also applies to the child of a national of
outside the establishments in question and the                            a Member State who pursues activities in another
organization of inspections or other measures of control of              Member State as a self-employed person ?
industrial activities have not yet been fully met. The
Commission is therefore of the opinion that the Italian                  To what extent is it also decisive in that connection
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations in that respect             that the child has never been resident in the
under Community law.                                                      Netherlands, and that the parent is not resident in the
                                                                         country in which the activity as a self-employed
                                                                          person is pursued ?
(') OJ L 230, 5 . 8 . 1982, p . 1 .
                                                                    (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968, II, p. 475 .


title: Case C-165/04: Actionbrought on 1 April 2004 by the Commission of theEuropean Communities against Ireland.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/51

         Action brought on 1 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland.
   (Case C-165/04)
   (2004/C 106/88)
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 March 2002 in case C-13/00 (1), Commission v. Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order Ireland to pay to the Commission of the European Communities a penalty payment of EUR 3.600 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in case C-13/00, from delivery of judgment in the present proceedings until the judgment in case C-13/00 has been complied with;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In its judgment of 19 March 2002 in case C-13/00, the Court declared that, by failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January 1995 to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.
   Article 228(1) EC requires a Member State to take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment by the Court which finds that it has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty.
   Two years have now elapsed since the Court's judgment in case C-13/00 and the Commission has received no information allowing it to consider that Ireland has finally ratified the Paris Act. It is therefore obliged to conclude that Ireland has not yet taken the measures necessary to comply with the Court's judgment in case C-13/00.
   In accordance with Article 228(2) EC the Commission asks the Court to impose a penalty payment of EUR 3.600 on Ireland for each day's delay in implementing the Court's judgment in case C-13/00, beginning from the day on which the Court gives its judgment in the present case.

      (1)  ECR 2002, p. I - 513.


title: Case T-357/13: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/45

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission
   (Case T-357/13) (1)

   2014/C 45/82
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-308/02: Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 247/10                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,              —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of                          Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
       25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legis-                       concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
       lation referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of                  in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive
       Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2), or in any event, by                      67/548/EEC, the French Republic failed to fulfil its
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the                    obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that directive;                                                       —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The obligations flowing from the third paragraph of
                                                                             Article 249 of the EC Treaty includes that of observing the
                                                                             time-limits laid down in directives. That time-limit expired on
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities              1 April 2002 without France having brought into force the
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures               necessary provisions.
necessary for incorporating the directive into domestic law so
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
the Commission thereof.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom has thus failed
to fulfil its obligations under the directive as regards Gibraltar.
                                                                             Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of
( 1) OJ L 103, 28.4.2000, p. 70.                                             the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
( 2) of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and                                      Luxembourg
     administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging
     and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1
     [SE SER1 71(I) p. 180).                                                                          (Case C-308/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/17)
                                                                             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the                        ties on 29 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
       European Communities against French Republic                          Communities, represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent,
                                                                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-307/02)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2002/C 247/16)                                    —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
                                                                                concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                       in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 August                          548/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                   —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 4 September 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-307/02.
                                                                                (Case C-311/02)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
                                                                                (2002/C 247/19)
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United
                               Kingdom
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
                           (Case C-310/02)                                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 September
                                                                          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by F. Franca and M. Konstantinidis, with an address
                           (2002/C 247/18)                                for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September               The Commission claims that the Court should:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Lena Ström and Xavier Lewis, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
                                                                                notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply fully with Directive 98/27/EC of the
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,                 European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   1998 ( 1) on injunctions for the protection of consumers’
       comply with Commission Directive 98/98/EC (1) of                         interests, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under the EC Treaty;
       15 December 1998 adapting to technical progress for the
       25th time the Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
       approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the classification, packaging and           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       labelling of dangerous substances, or in any event, by
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission the
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that Directive;
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     infringement of the third paragraph of Article 249 and
                                                                                the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty;
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in case C-305/02 (2). Moreover, the Commission considers that
the exclusion of the customs and commercial policy provisions             —     infringement of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/27/EC.
as set out in the Act of Accession with regard to Gibraltar does
not exclude the application of Article 95 of the EC Treaty and
secondary legislation adopted thereunder.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ No L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.
( 1) OJ L 355, 30.12.1998, p. 1.
( 2) See p. 9 of the present Official Journal.


title: Case T-434/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Arbuzov v Council
   (Case T-434/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
   (2016/C 098/49)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and P. Radošovský, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 in so far as it applies to Mr Sergej Arbuzov;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Arbuzov.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 26.8.2014.


title: Case C-323/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta
   (Case C-323/17)
   (2017/C 277/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman

      Defendant: Coillte Teoranta

      Question referred

   Whether, or in what circumstances, mitigation measures can be considered when carrying out screening for appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1)?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-370/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Uwe Kay Festersen (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural property — Requirement that the acquirer take up fixed residence on the agricultural property)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Uwe Kay Festersen
   (Case C-370/05) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural property - Requirement that the acquirer take up fixed residence on the agricultural property)
   (2007/C 56/14)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret
   Party to the main criminal proceedings
   Uwe Kay Festersen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National legislation under which the acquisition of an agricultural holding is conditional on taking up residence there
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 56 EC precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from laying down as a condition for acquiring an agricultural property the requirement that the acquirer take up fixed residence on that property.

               2)

               That interpretation of Article 56 EC would not be different where the agricultural property acquired did not constitute a viable farm and the residential building was situated in an urban zone.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case T-144/04: Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française 1 SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/8

         Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française 1 SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-144/04)
   (2004/C 168/15)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française 1 SA, established in Boulogne (France), represented by J.-P. Hordies, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C (2003) 4497 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 December 2003 on State aid implemented by France for the benefit of ‘France 2’ and ‘France 3’ from 1988 to 1994, insofar as it declares that aid to be compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) of the Treaty;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Following a complaint made by the applicant, the Commission decided to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC into investment subsidies and capital grants received by the television channels ‘France 2’ and ‘France 3’ from 1988 to 1994. By the contested decision, the Commission decided to treat those measures as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC but declared them compatible with the EC Treaty under Article 86(2).
   By its first plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of reasons for the contested decision is erroneous and that the decision infringes Article 86(2) EC and the provisions on State aid. It disputes the Commission's finding that the activities of the two channels in question are a service in the general interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) and points out that, although its own activities are almost identical, they are not regarded as being in the general interest. It also calls into question the financial assessment of the aid made by the Commission in the contested decision.
   By its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Directive 80/723 (1) when it decided that that directive did not apply to the broadcasting activities of public channels before 2000. On the same basis, the applicant alleges misapplication of the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, which is annexed to the EC Treaty.

      (1)  Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35).


title: Case C-215/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 May 2010 — Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 May 2010 — Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-215/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/21
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pacific World Limited, FDD International Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 (1) of 28 November 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid in so far as it classifies under CN code 3926 90 97 the false nails, and thereby the false nail sets, described in Annex 1 to the said Regulation?

               2.

               If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, is the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as requiring that the false nail sets in issue be classified as ‘beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of the skin (other than medicaments), including sunscreen or suntan preparations; manicure or pedicure preparations.manicure or pedicure preparations’ under tariff heading 3304 30 00 or as ‘Other articles of cutlery (for example, hair clippers, butchers' or kitchen cleavers, choppers and mincing knives, paperknives); manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (including nail files).manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (including nail files)’ under tariff heading 8214 20 OO?

      (1)  OJ L 316, p. 4


title: Case T-268/02: Action brought on 5 September 2002 by National Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employment Actions Limited (NRITEA) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 5 September 2002 by National
                                                                          Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employ-
                                                                          ment Actions Limited (NRITEA) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (Case T-268/02)
Community trade mark           The word/figurative mark ‘atlasre-                                 (2002/C 289/50)
applied for:                   isen’ for goods in Classes 16,
                               36, 39, 41 and 42 (application
                               No 376210)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
Proprietor of the oppos-       Fritidsresor AB
ing trade mark or sign:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 September 2002 by National
Opposing trade mark or         The national Swedish word/figu-            Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employment
sign:                          rative mark ‘Atlas resor’ for ser-         Actions Limited (NRITEA), Newcastle Upon Tyne (United
                               vices in Class 39 (travel arrange-         Kingdom), represented by Ms Alison Tate, Solicitor.
                               ments and travel agencies)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Decision of Opposition         Dismissal of application for Com-
Division:                      munity trade mark for the services
                               ‘arranging transport services by           —     annul the decision of the Commission dated 23 May
                               water, land and air; arranging and               2002 and the plaintiff be given a detailed analysis of each
                               conducting travel by water, land                 and every dossier on which there is alleged to be a
                               and air; arranging and providing                 problem and be allowed sufficient time to respond;
                               travel for tourists; providing tick-
                               ets; providing food and drink and          —     in the alternative, annul the Decision of 23 May 2002
                               temporary accommodation in                       and a declaration be made that Article 23 of Regulation
                               hotels and restaurants’ and admis-               (EEC) 4253/88 should apply in this instance rather than
                               sion of the registration for the                 Article 24.
                               remaining goods and services
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law:                  —     Insufficient proof of genuine        The applicant is a voluntary organisation and a company
                                     use of the trade mark by the         limited by guarantee that assists and monitors the provision of
                                     opponent;                            training and development of underprivileged and deprived
                                                                          individuals in the United Kingdom. In this respect, the
                               —     Failure to comply with               applicant worked together with The MARI Group Limited, a
                                     Article 8(1) of Regulation           commercial company, specialised in training.
                                     No 40/94 (1). The applicant
                                     claims there is no likelihood
                                     of confusion between the             Both companies were subject to several detailed audits.
                                     trade marks.
                                                                          Following these audits and as a result of various irregularities
                                                                          found in the execution of the projects, the Commission decided
                                                                          to reduce the total assistance from the European Social Fund.
                                                                          This Decision is contested by the applicant in the present case.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement in that it failed to provide the
                                                                          applicant with the opportunity to defend itself. According to
                                                                          the applicant, the Commission never provided directly to the
                                                                          applicant sufficient details of the allegations raised.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/27
The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of its right to a             —     order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceed-
fair trial. According to the applicant, there was no fair and                     ings be borne by the defendant.
independent hearing in the matter. The applicant also invokes
a violation of the right of access to documents. In addition, the
Commission violated the principle of good administration by
not dealing with the matter within a reasonable time limit.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has misused
its powers by implementing Article 24 of Regulation (EEC)
4253/88 (1). According to the applicant, Article 24 should
only be used in the event of impropriety. In the present case,
the Commission should have applied Article 23 of the                        The applicants are producers of CD-Rs established in Taiwan
regulation to recover the money overpaid as a result of                     and export CD-Rs to the Community. In February 2001, an
mistakes.                                                                   anti-dumping complaint was lodged before the Commission
                                                                            by the Committee of European CD-R Manufacturers. Following
                                                                            this complaint, the Commission initiated an investigation
( 1) Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down           regarding imports originating in Taiwan. Provisional anti-
     provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as             dumping measures were imposed by Commission Regulation
     regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural     2479/2001 (1). These measures were made definitive by
     Funds between themselves and with the operations of the                Council Regulation 1050/2002 (2). The applicants contest the
     European Investment Bank and the other existing financial              latter regulation with their present action.
     instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).
                                                                            The applicants allege infringement of Articles 2(10) and 2(11)
                                                                            of Regulation 384/96 on protection against dumped imports
                                                                            from countries not members of the European Community (3).
                                                                            According to the applicants, the Council committed a manifest
                                                                            error in the assessment of the facts and of law by finding that
                                                                            the applicants engaged in ‘targeted dumping’ practices and
Action brought on 6 September 2002 by Ritek Corpor-                         allowed use of the average-to-transaction methodology in the
ation and Prodisc Technology Inc. against the Council of                    calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants.
                       the European Union
                          (Case T-274/02)
                                                                            According to the applicants, no exceptional treatment of
                                                                            certain transactions to certain customers, in certain regions or
                         (2002/C 289/51)                                    in certain time periods, i.e. no targeted dumping, took place
                                                                            during the investigation period. The applicants submit that
                                                                            export and domestic price patterns were almost identical and
                    (Language of the case: English)                         that the prices for CD-Rs declined worldwide. In these
                                                                            circumstances, there was, according to the applicants, no
                                                                            place for disguising the effects of dumping through targeted
                                                                            dumping.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 6 September 2002 by Ritek Corporation,
Hsin Chu Industrial Park, Taiwan R.O.C. and Prodisc Tech-                   The applicants furthermore claim that by using the average-to-
nology Inc., Taipei Hsien, Taiwan R.O.C, represented by Dr                  transaction methodology which refers to constructed normal
Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Barrister, with an address for                 values, the Commission failed to address the purpose of
service in Luxembourg.                                                      targeted dumping, which is to conceal dumping by charging
                                                                            different export prices. According to the applicants, the
                                                                            Commission should refer to actual prices when investigating
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 targeted dumping.
—      declare, pursuant to Article 230 and 231 of the Treaty,
       that Council Regulation (EC) 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002
       imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting               Secondly, the applicants allege infringement of Article 2 of
       definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of              Regulation 384/96. The applicant claims that the Council
       recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan is null ad            made a manifest error of assessment of the facts in calculating
       void;                                                                the dumping margin of the applicants by using the ‘zeroing


title: Case F-107/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Daskalakis v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations — Interim allowance — Inadmissible)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Daskalakis v Commission
   (Case F-107/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim allowance - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 183/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, Advocate)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision to limit to one year the period during which the applicant, an official called upon to occupy, on a temporary basis, a post of head of unit, may benefit from the differential allowance provided for by Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 46.


title: Case F-76/08: Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Behmer v Parliament

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/56

         Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-76/08)
   (2008/C 285/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2007 promotion procedure
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2007 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-347/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Belgium v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/19

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-347/06)
   (2007/C 20/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: AB Nynäs Petroleum (Stockholm, Sweden) and Nynas Belgium AB (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, and M. Dean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it imputes joint and several liability to AB Nynas;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 13.5 million on Nynas, or in the alternative, reduce that fine as appropriate; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by regularly and collectively fixing, for sales and purchases of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands, the gross price, a uniform rebate on the gross price for participating road builders and a smaller maximum rebate on the gross price for other road builders.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit, first of all, that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in holding Nynäs Petroleum jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by Nynas Belgium as Nynas Belgium operated as an autonomous legal entity that determined its commercial policy independently from Nynäs Petroleum. According to the applicants, the Commission has not demonstrated that Nynäs Petroleum had the power to direct the operations of Nynas Belgium to the point of depriving it of any real independence in determining its own course of action on the market.
   Secondly, the applicants allege that the Commission disregarded the provisions of the Leniency Notice (1) contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, when it dismissed the value of the information voluntarily provided by the applicants under Part B of the Leniency Notice and refused to grant the applicants a reduction for cooperation. The applicants claim that the Commission among others committed the following errors of law and assessment:

               —

               the Commission wrongly concluded that the information provided by the applicants did not of its nature strengthen the Commission's ability to prove the infringement, since other participants in the infringement had already admitted the infringement and other replies to the request for information had already confirmed the existence of a system of meetings;

               —

               the Commission wrongly concluded that the information provided by the applicants did not constitute significant added value.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)


title: Case T-391/02: Action brought on 24 December 2002 by the Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung e.V. and Josef Kloh against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 44/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Antonio Cagna-                      Action brought on 24 December 2002 by the Bundesver-
to against the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  band der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung e.V.
                               ties                                       and Josef Kloh against the European Parliament and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-390/02)
                                                                                (Case T-391/02)
                         (2003/C 44/78)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by                        An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Antonio Cagnato, residing in Dippach-Gare (Luxembourg),
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvol-              Insurance of the European Communities on 24 December
vé, lawyers.                                                              2002 by the Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speisere-
                                                                          steverwertung e.V., Bochum (Germany), and Josef Kloh, Eich-
                                                                          enried (Germany), represented by R. Steiling and S. von
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Zimmermann-Wienhues.
—     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
      24 September 2002 and concerning the complaint lodged               The applicants claim that the Court should:
      by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against the decision
      of 25 October 2001;
                                                                          —     annul Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation
                                                                                2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-
      for the damage and non-material damage of every kind
                                                                                products not intended for human consumption ( 1) in so
      that he has suffered as a result of his being exposed to
                                                                                far as transitional measures under Article 32(1) of the
      asbestos when carrying out his duties at the Palais de
                                                                                regulation are permitted for no more than four years
      Justice of the Court of First Instance and the Court of
                                                                                from 1 November 2002;
      Justice of the European Communities, estimated at a sum
      of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary reservations;
                                                                          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges            The action challenges the time-limit on transitional measures
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage               which may be adopted under Article 32 of the contested
suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has               regulation in the case of Member States with a secure system
already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-               for processing food and kitchen waste [catering waste].
ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
                                                                          1.    The imposition of a time-limit exceeds the bounds of the
                                                                                Parliament’s and the Council’s discretion; it runs counter
The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to               to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(2) EC) and the
those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of                        principle of proportionality (Article 5(3) EC).
9.11.2002, p. 26).
                                                                                In matters of Community health and hygiene law the
                                                                                institutions do not enjoy wide political discretion:
                                                                                decisions must be based on scientific evidence. There is
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 44/43
      no scientific evidence that the processing of food waste,            Action brought on 30 December 2002 by Linea Gig S.r.l.
      as performed in the Federal Republic of Germany under                (in liquidation) against the Commission of the European
      stricter conditions in recent years, presents a risk of                                          Communities
      contamination. The risk is, on the contrary, reduced
      because illegal disposal and use as feed is prevented and
      food and kitchen waste are subject to treatment which                                          (Case T-398/02)
      destroys pathogens to a scientifically proven degree.
      There are adequate measures of control to ensure com-
      pliance with those legal requirements and the constituents
      of animal feed are traceable. The system used in the                                            (2003/C 44/80)
      Federal Republic of Germany for the collection and
      treatment of food waste and its processing into feed thus
      already meets the objectives of the regulation and there                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
      was no need for any wider authorisation in Community
      law. The possibility of extending the duration of dero-
      gations should have been made dependent on scientific
      evidence.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 30 December 2002 by Linea Gig
2.    It is incompatible with the general principle of equality            S.r.l. (in liquidation), represented by Lucio D’Amario and
      for the inflexible time restriction placed on derogating             Bruno Lazia, Lawyers.
      provisions to treat the various systems used in the
      Member States for processing food waste, and in particu-
      lar the processing into feed of food waste adequately
      treated or not, as being the same. There is no justification         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      for that in the principle governing the regulation, which
      is the prevention of contamination. Scientific evidence
      showed clearly that the way in which food waste was                  —      annul the contested decision, in whole or in so far as it
      treated in the Federal Republic of Germany was sufficient                   concerns the applicant;
      to avoid the spread of pathogens.
                                                                           —      in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision in so far
                                                                                as it imposes a fine on the applicant;
3.    The time-limit imposed for derogations is an unjustified
      encroachment on freedom of property and freedom to                   —      in the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine
      pursue an occupation, and on freedom as to how business                     imposed on the applicant;
      is run, because the member undertakings of plaintiffs 1
      and 2 are entitled to special protection of their right to
                                                                           —      order the Commission to pay the costs;
      rely on being able to pursue their activities and continue
      to use their facilities — most of which have been only
      recently modernised. Their facilities and their activities           —      order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
      have been brought into compliance with stringent legal                      costs incurred by the applicant in the administrative
      requirements which are based on scientific evidence. They                   proceedings.
      must therefore be able to rely on being able to continue
      to pursue their activities and use their facilities as long as
      they keep to those stricter requirements and no new
      scientific evidence is available. In addition, the regulation’s
      provisions take no account of the fact that as a rule it is
      not possible for the food waste processors concerned to              Pleas in law and main arguments
      alter the use of their facilities and business premisses.
                                                                           The present action is directed against the Decision of 30 Octo-
                                                                           ber 2002 COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO
                                                                           Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega-Nintendo
( 1) OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1.                                                  doc. C(2000) 4072 final, wherein the Commission found that
                                                                           the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1)
                                                                           of the EEA agreement as a result of its involvement, during the
                                                                           period from 1 October 1992 to the end of December 1997, in
                                                                           a series of agreements and concerted practices in the market
                                                                           for video game consols and cartridges compatible with the
                                                                           Nintendo console, the purpose and effect of the agreements
                                                                           and practices being to limit parallel exports of Nintendo


title: Case T-357/13: Action brought on 5 July 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/44

         Action brought on 5 July 2013 — European Space Imaging v Commission
   (Case T-357/13)
   2013/C 260/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Space Imaging GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 concerning the annulment of the restricted procedure;

               —

               annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2013 to hold a new procurement procedure by way of an open procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
               The applicant claims that, by annulling the procurement procedure for the supply of satellite remote sensing data and associated services in support of checks within the common agricultural policy (OJ 2012/S 183 299769), the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. (1) The applicant claims in that connection, inter alia, that the Commission’s course of action runs counter to the general principle that the annulment of a procurement procedure should be a measure of last resort (‘ultima ratio’). The applicant is of the view that the Commission ought to have requested candidates to submit specific offers before it could decide that in fact no economic offer would be considered.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of transparency
               The applicant claims in this plea that by refusing to give specific information on the grounds for annulling the procurement procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation. In particular, the applicant is not able to ascertain whether the grounds alleged are applicable. The applicant moreover claims that the highly specialised nature of the relevant market for the supply of satellite remote sensing data means that the number of potential tenderers is very limited and alleges that, prior to its decision to annul the procurement procedure, the Commission failed to make it known that there was a possibility that the procedure would be annulled if a given number of applicants was not reached.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1).


title: Case C-68/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — X v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Parent-Subsidiary Directive — Tax legislation — Tax on company profits — Distribution of dividends — Withholding tax — Double taxation — ‘Fairness tax’)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — X v Ministerraad
   (Case C-68/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Parent-Subsidiary Directive - Tax legislation - Tax on company profits - Distribution of dividends - Withholding tax - Double taxation - ‘Fairness tax’))
   (2017/C 239/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Freedom of establishment must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which both a non-resident company conducting an economic activity in that Member State through a permanent establishment and a resident company, including the resident subsidiary of a non-resident company, are subject to a tax such as the ‘fairness tax’ when they distribute dividends which, as a result of the use of certain tax advantages provided for by the national tax system, are not included in their final taxable profits, provided that the method of determining the taxable amount of that tax does not in fact lead to that non-resident company being treated in a less advantageous manner than a resident company, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               Article 5 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for a tax such as the ‘fairness tax’, to which non-resident companies conducting an economic activity in that Member State through a permanent establishment and resident companies, including the resident subsidiary of a non-resident company, are subject when they distribute dividends which, as a result of the use of certain tax advantages provided for by the national tax system, are not included in their final taxable profits.

               3.

               Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2011/96, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as that legislation, in a situation where profits received by a parent company from its subsidiary are distributed by the parent company after the year in which they were received, has the consequence of subjecting those profits to taxation exceeding the 5 % ceiling provided for in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case T-285/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Italy v Parliament and Commission (Procedural step — Objection of inadmissibility — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Non-attributability of the contested measure to the Parliament)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Italy v Parliament and Commission
   (Case T-285/07) (1)

   (Procedural step - Objection of inadmissibility - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Non-attributability of the contested measure to the Parliament)
   (2009/C 55/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by A. Lukošiūtė, R. Ignătescu and G. Mazzini, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Vodina and M. Michelogiannaki, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 20 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of ‘Information Science (Library/Documentation)’, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 8 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

               2.

               The Italian Republic shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission, in addition to bearing the costs which it has itself incurred in this action in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of 11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel

text:
C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    —    lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission since the
                                                                                requested attachment does not in any way interfere with
                         of 21 March 2002                                        the independence and functioning of the Communities;
in Case C-430/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   —    declare that the Commission’s accounting officer incor-
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monika                            rectly declared that the Commission has no existing or
              Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)                               contingent debts towards the Democratic Republic of the
                                                                                Congo or the Banque Nationale du Congo.
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                          (2002/C 247/02)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                            Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of
In Case C-430/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                    11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna
Higher Civil Court) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings pending before that court between Monika                                        (Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02)
Herbstrith and the Republic of Austria on whether the failure
to appoint to a post a candidate with the required professional
qualifications infringes a provision of Community law, and on                                       (2002/C 247/04)
the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability
for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringements
of Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
on 21 March 2002, in which it ruled:                                        tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for
                                                                            Salzburg) of 11 February 2002, received at the Court Registry
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of              on 3 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by
Justice of the European Communities by the Landesgericht für                Dr Manfred Hückel on the following questions:
Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by decision of 12 October 2001, is
inadmissible.                                                               1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
                                                                                18 December 1978 (1) on the approximation of the
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                       laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
                                                                                the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
                                                                                Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
                                                                                20 March 2000 — OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), under which
                                                                                — subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
                                                                                mineral waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional
Application brought on 22 August 2002 by Antippas for                            uses — the labelling and methods used may not attribute
leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the                             to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or
                     European Communities                                        curing a human disease, or suggest that it possesses such
                                                                                properties, preclude national legislation which makes it
                         (Case C-1/02 SA)                                        an offence when marketing foodstuffs:
                          (2002/C 247/03)                                        (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
                                                                                effect;
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on on
22 August 2002 by Antippas, represented by Mario Spandre,                        (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
lawyer.                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/3
      (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-       3.     If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:
            tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                How, and by reference to what parameters, is the
            of members of the health-care professions or of
            sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring              authorised toll for a single journey along the whole
            to health-care activities?                                          motorway to be calculated in each individual case?
                                                                         4.     Only if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                          the affirmative and are accompanied, as requested in
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into                  question 3, by an explanation of the method of calcu-
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-                  lation to be employed:
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the                     Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/94
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of                        Parliament v Council (3), in which it was held that the
      authorisation is that the health-related information is                   effects of Directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                        that judgment, were to be preserved until the Council had
      misled?                                                                   adopted a new directive, to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that the effects are to be preserved until the Member
                                                                                States have transposed the new directive or, as the case
( 1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                             may be, until the time-limit for transposition has expired?
                                                                         5.     Only if the answer to question 4 is in the negative:
                                                                                In respect of the period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July
                                                                                2000, are the Member States under an obligation to have
                                                                                regard to the new directive, that is to say, does it have
                                                                                advance effects which must be observed?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that                  (1 ) OJ L 279 [1993], p. 32.
Court of 25 June 2002 in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V.               (2 ) OJ L 187 [1999], p. 42.
                                                                         (3 ) ECR I-1827 [1995].
                    against Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-257/02)
                         (2002/C 247/05)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz
                                                                         Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July
                                                                         2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                               mbH
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 25 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 15 July 2002, for a                                              (Case C-277/02)
preliminary ruling in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V. against
Republic of Austria on the following questions:                                                    (2002/C 247/06)
1.    Are Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC ( 1) and
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC ( 2) intended         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to confer on all transport undertakings the right, in return       European Communities by order of the Rheinland-Pfalz Ober-
      for payment of a road user charge which complies with              verwaltungsgericht (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrat-
      those directives and is thus reasonable, to conduct                ive Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
      journeys on stretches of motorway for which a toll is              29 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      levied on vehicles with more than three axles used for the         EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-
      commercial carriage of goods?                                      Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH on the following questions:
2.    If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                 1.     Under the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
      Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC and                        supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC have direct                  into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,
      effect according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,                 p. 1), can an objection to the shipment of waste for
      such that, if the directives have not been transposed, or                 recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
      have been transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they                  recovery contravenes the requirement arising from the
      may be relied on in calculating a toll that complies with                 first paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/
      the directives for vehicles with more than three axles used               EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 74) for
      for the commercial carriage of goods along the whole of                   waste to be recovered in a manner which is compatible
      the Austrian Brenner motorway?                                            with health and environmental imperatives?


               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/17

         Action brought on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-3/17)
   (2017/C 108/15)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By maintaining in force an authorisation system for fresh meat and meat products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at Point 1.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions in Annex I thereto, and in particular Article 5 of that directive.

               2.

               Iceland bears the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) claims that Iceland has breached its obligations under Directive 89/662/EEC by maintaining in force an authorisation system for the import of, inter alia, fresh meat and meat products.

               —

               ESA submits that the rules concerning the intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin and veterinary checks are harmonised at EEA level. Council Directive 89/662/EEC regulates veterinary checks in intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin. Its main objective is to eliminate veterinary checks at the EEA’s internal borders while reinforcing the checks carried out at the point of origin. The competent authorities of the EEA State of destination may only check, by means of non-discriminatory spot-checks, compliance with the relevant EEA legislation.

               —

               ESA submits that by maintaining in force the authorisation system for the importation of fresh meat and meat products, Iceland imposes additional requirements, which are not allowed by the harmonised at EEA level framework of veterinary checks.

               —

               According to ESA, the noncompliance with EEA law of such imposition of additional requirements has already been recognised by the EFTA Court in its judgment in Case E-17/15 Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State.


title: Case C-310/05: Action brought on 8 August 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/11

         Action brought on 8 August 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-310/05)
   (2005/C 243/18)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy and Antonio Aresu, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the said provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has yet to take the measures which it was obliged to put in place by 15 January 2004 in relation to Directive 2001/95 and in any event has failed to communicate those measures to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ L 11 of 15.01.2002, p. 4


title: Case F-127/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 February 2012 — Bömcke v EIB

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 February 2012 — Bömcke v EIB
   (Case F-127/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/100
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 36.


title: Case T-77/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015  — Tronios Group International v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (SkyTec)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/40

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Tronios Group International v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (SkyTec)
   (Case T-77/15)
   (2015/C 118/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Tronios Group International BV

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SkyTec’

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2014 in Case R 1681/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and dismiss the application for annulment of British Sky Broadcasting Group;

               —

               order British Sky Broadcasting Group to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs of the earlier proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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