title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-99/98)

text:
10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/13
3. suspends execution of that Commission Decision until             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    such time as the Court of First Instance has given final        Communities on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
    judgment on the main action;                                    GmbH and others, Stuttgart (Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany), represented by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt,
4. reserves the costs.                                              Hamburg (Germany), with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                                                                    Philippe II.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                               Ð declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the applicants for the losses suffered and/or to be
                       of 15 July 1998                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of the application
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the
in Case T-73/98 R: SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v.                common organisation of the market in bananas, in
         Commission of the European Communities                         particular Articles 17 to 19 and 21(2) thereof, and in
(State aid Ð Proceedings for interim measures Ð                         consequence of the application of Commission
  Intervention Ð Interim measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                     Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 laying down detailed
                                                                        rules for the application of the arrangements for
                        (98/C 312/35)                                   importing bananas into the Community, inasmuch as,
                                                                        in accordance with those regulations, and in particular
               (Language of the case: French)                           Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93:
In Case T-73/98 R SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA,                   Ð the inclusion of the applicants in the closed
incorporated in Engis (Belgium), represented by Bernard                     category of Category A' market operators
van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                       (Article 2(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93) is
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        conditional on their having marketed third-country
Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against the Commission                       bananas during the years 1989 to 1991,
of the European Communities (Agent: Dimitris
Triantafyllou) Ð application for operation of Commission                Ð the scope of the import licences to which the
Decision SG (98) D631 on State aid cases N 198/97 and                       applicants are entitled within the framework of
NN 81/97 to be suspended Ð Germany Ð Financial                              Category A' is conditional on the reference
measures in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH,                      quantities accumulated by the applicants during
and for any other form of interim measure, the President                    the years 1989 to 1991, and
of the Court made an order on 15 July 1998 in which he:
                                                                        Ð market operators who, during the period from
1. allowed the Federal Republic of Germany to intervene                     1989 to 1991, were established in the former
    in support of the Commission;                                           German Democratic Republic were unable, prior
                                                                            to the point in time at which the territory of the
2. allowed the application by SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-                    former German Democratic Republic became part
    Rupel SA for certain parts of its application for                       of the then European Economic Community
    suspension of operation to be treated as confidential                   (German reunification on 3 October 1990), to
    for the interlocutory stage of the proceedings;                         accumulate such quantities,
3. dismissed the application for interim measures;                  Ð order the parties to indicate, within a given period (to
                                                                        be prescribed by the Court) after delivery of its
                                                                        judgment, the amounts which they have agreed upon
4. reserved judgment on costs.                                          as being payable, or, if no such agreement is reached,
                                                                        order them to submit to the Court, within that period,
                                                                        their quantified proposals as to the sums which should
                                                                        be paid,
                                                                    Ð reserve its decision as to costs.
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
GmbH and Others against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                       (Case T-99/98)
                                                                    The applicants, who are members of the Atlanta Group,
                        (98/C 312/36)
                                                                    are established in the territory of the former German
                                                                    Democratic Republic, or were established there during the
              (Language of the case: German)                        period from 1989 to 1991. They are claiming inter alia
                                                                    compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them
An action against the Council of the European Union and             as a result of the fact that, under the Community rules on
the Commission of the European Communities was                      the organisation of the market, they were not able to
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
accumulate initial reference quantities throughout the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
whole of the reference period (1989 to 1991), and were             Chambers of Claude Medernach, of Arendt &
able to do so only during the period from 3 October 1990           Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Luxembourg.
to 31 December 1991.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants maintain that the organisation of the
market has had the effect of depriving them of quantities,         Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
since it did not provide for any transitional rules which              USD 7 923 791 together with interest thereon at a rate
would have enabled third-country operators to adapt their              of 10 % from 25 September 1991,
business arrangements gradually to the organisation of the
market and to write off the investments made by them on            Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the basis of the quantities imported prior to the entry into
force of the organisation of the market. The applicants
were able to use only a small part of the initial reference        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period from 1989 to 1991 in order to accumulate
reference quantities. They received far fewer import               The applicant, a property and construction company
licences than they would have received if, like all other          limited by shares and incorporated under Italian law,
third-country operators, they had had the benefit of a             alleges that it undertook work on the basis of a contract
reference period of three years.                                   entered into with the defendant for the Baardaheere
                                                                   Agricultural Experimental Station' development aid
                                                                   project launched on the basis of the Third ACP-EEC LomeÂ
The applicants complain of breach of the rights of the
                                                                   Convention for Somalia and for the execution of a project
defence, in that the Commission refused to hear the views
                                                                   under the aegis of the Sixth European Development Fund
of third-country operators unless those operators
                                                                   in Somalia.
presented their views jointly with the Community
operators and ACP operators, speaking with one voice'.
The applicants further allege a breach of the prohibition          The defendant's liability is now at issue as the
of discrimination contained in Article 40(3) of the EC             administrator of that development fund and employer of a
Treaty and breach of the principle of the protection of            member of staff answerable to it, namely its Somalia
legitimate expectations as regards third-country operators         delegate, on the ground of his unlawful conduct resulting
generally (who were given no opportunity to adapt                  in an obligation to pay damages. In spite of the unrest
themselves gradually to the drastic reduction in                   akin to civil war in 1990 and 1991, that delegate allegedly
quantities). In addition, the application to the applicants        held the applicant to its obligations under its contract
of the common organisation of the market has prejudiced            with the defendant notwithstanding the grave concerns
their freedom to engage in commercial activities. Finally,         voiced by the applicant about remaining in the country
the applicants plead infringement of the decision of the           any longer. Further, the delegate even urged the applicant
Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation            that it should maintain and oversee the works which had
(WTO), according to which essential provisions of the              been constructed for a period of at least two months
common organisation of the market, in particular the               beyond the performance of the contract. The applicant
system of licences established by it, are incompatible with        notified the defendant in writing as long ago as 1991 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the                 resultant claims for compensation particularly since the
General Agreement on Trade in Services. Consequently,              applicant had incurred damage in the total amount of
the Community is liable to compensate the applicants by            USD 7 923 791 as a result of warlike acts committed by
placing them in the position which they would haved                the guerillas (destruction and theft of plant and equipment
occupied if the common organisation of the market, which           and plundering and wreaking devastation at the head
is contrary to the WTO rules, had never entered into               office and workshops) and the associated costs
force.                                                             (evacuation costs, claims for compensation from foreign
                                                                   staff, etc.).
                                                                   The applicant considers the fact that the defendant's
                                                                   delegate repeatedly ordered that the contract be performed
                                                                   and the project maintained and overseen, notwithstanding
                                                                   the foreseeability of the disintegration of Somalia's State
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Fratelli Murri SpA
                                                                   structures, to amount to unlawful conduct attributable to
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   the defendant. It alleges that the delegate, who was aware
                      (Case T-106/98)                              of that situation although he may have failed to make a
                       (98/C 312/37)                               correct assessment of how it would develop, did not give
                                                                   permission for the works to be prematurely terminated
                                                                   and the machines and equipment to be removed from the
               (Language of the case: German)                      country in time. Consequently there was a breach of the
                                                                   principle of proportionality. If the delegate had properly
An action against the Commission of the European                   and fairly weighed up the interests of the parties, he
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  would Ð not least as a result of the applicant's repeated
Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 1998               express warnings as to the dangerousness of the situation
by Fratelli Murri SpA, Rome (Italy), represented by Karl-          Ð have seen that the development aid project was not
Gustav von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt, Plauen (Germany),                secure in the long term and so was doomed. Instead, the


title: Case C-517/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA, v Province de Namur

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA, v Province de Namur
   (Case C-517/13)
   2013/C 352/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA

      Defendant: Province de Namur

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (1) be interpreted to mean that it precludes legislation of a national or local authority which imposes, for budgetary purposes outside the purposes of that authorisation, a tax on mobile communications infrastructures used in the context of performing activities covered by a general authorisation granted pursuant to that directive (as the case may be, distinguishing the situation in which those infrastructures are established on private property from the situation in which they are established on public property)?

               2.

               Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted to mean that it precludes legislation of a national or local authority which imposes, for budgetary purposes outside the purposes of that authorisation, a tax on mobile communications infrastructures which does not feature among the conditions listed in Part A of the annex to that directive, in particular as it does not constitute an administrative charge within the terms of Article 12?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case C-46/14: Order of the President of the Court of 6 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-46/14) (1)

   2014/C 261/42
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-512/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/31

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission
   (Case T-512/13 P)
   2013/C 367/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: AN (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs at first instance and at appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons when the Civil Service Tribunal examined the plea submitted at first instance relating to the unlawfulness of the inquiry directed against the appellant, since the statement of reasons put forward by the Civil Service Tribunal in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal is erroneous or at the very least inadequate and incomplete.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging distortion by the Civil Service Tribunal of the facts and evidence both when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant enjoyed the protection provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant had not put forward any evidence that the administrative inquiry directed against it was initiated by way of retaliation (concerning paragraphs 87, 88 and 94 of the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-394/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2008 by Zipcar, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2008 in Case T-36/07 Zipcar, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/28

         Appeal brought on 12 September 2008 by Zipcar, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2008 in Case T-36/07 Zipcar, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-394/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Zipcar, Inc. (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor, N. Saunders, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Canary Islands Car SL
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 in case T-36/07 in its entirety

               —

               Remit the application to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to allow it to preceed

               —

               Order that the Respondent shall pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal and of the Appeal before the Court of First Instance

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1)

               Improper extension of the factual and legal context of the review of the legality of the decision under appeal. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance in its judgment changed the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the OHIM and took into account facts and matters which extended the factual and legal context of the dispute before the OHIM.

               2)

               Breach of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1). The Court of First Instance stated in effect that the relevant public must be considered to be solely Spanish speaking ‘even if it is accepted that in certain regions of Spain, such as the Canary Islands, English is commonly spoken or that some Spanish consumers have knowledge of English’. This amounts to an error in law because it is in effect a ruling that in assessing the linguistic capacity and understanding of the average consumer in any particular case, the only question is one of determining the main or primary language of the Member State in which the earlier right subsists, without regard to other facts which are relevant to determining the nature of the relevant consumer.

               3)

               Further breach of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94. Having identified three categories of similarity between the goods and services of the application and those of the alleged prior right, namely ‘in part identical’, ‘in part very similar’, and ‘in part not materially different’ the Court erred in law by failing to consider the effect of these three different categories in assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 June 1999 in Case C-295/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio SpA v International Factors Italia SpA (Ifitalia), Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, Ministero della Difesa (State aid - Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) - New aid - Prior notification)

text:
7.8.1999                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/7
— either vehicles in the 15-16 CV tax band cannot be regarded as            (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
     similar, for the purposes of that provision, to vehicles in the tax    of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
     bands above 18 CV and, more particularly, to vehicles in tax           Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wa-
     bands 23 CV and above, such as that of the plaintiff in the main       thelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
     proceedings,                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it
                                                                            has ruled:
— or some of the vehicles in the 15-16 CV tax band may be
     regarded as products similar to vehicles in tax bands above 18
     CV and, more particularly, those in tax bands 23 CV and above,         An acknowledgement of indebtedness enforceable under the law of
     but, within the range of imported vehicles in the 15-16 CV             the State of origin whose authenticity has not been established by a
     band, consumers have a choice such that the increase in the            public authority or other authority empowered for that purpose by
     progression co-efficient between the 15-16 CU band and the             that State does not constitute an authentic instrument within the
     bands above 18 CV and, more particularly, tax band 23 CV               meaning of Article 50 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     and above, is not of a nature such as to favour the sale of vehicles   jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
     of domestic manufacture.                                               matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
                                                                            accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                            Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                    Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic
                                                                            Republic.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 17 June 1999                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-260/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              (Fifth Chamber)
the Bundesgerichtshof): Unibank A/S v Flemming G.
                             Christensen (1)                                                           of 17 June 1999
(Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 50 —
Meaning of ‘document which has been formally drawn up or                    in Case C-295/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
registered as an authentic instrument and is enforceable in                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Industrie Aeronautiche e
one Contracting State’ — Document drawn up without any                      Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio SpA v International Factors
    involvement of a public officer — Articles 32 and 36)                   Italia SpA (Ifitalia), Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, Ministero
                                                                                della Difesa (1)
                            (1999/C 226/11)
                                                                            (State aid — Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            amendment, Article 87 EC) — New aid — Prior notification)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/12)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-260/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the                                     in the European Court Reports)
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial masters, by
the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Unibank                   In Case C-295/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
A/S and Flemming G. Christensen on the interpretation of                    EC (ex Article 177) by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) for a
Articles 32, 36 and 50 of the abovementioned Convention of                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by                     court between Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                    Piaggio SpA and International Factors Italia SpA (Ifitalia),
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                       Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, Ministero della Difesa — on the
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and                 interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
— amended text — p. 77) and by the Convention of                            amendment, Article 87 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic                   composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               7.8.1999
P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rap-                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
porteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it has ruled:                                                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 June 1999
1. Within the framework of proceedings brought under Article 234
     EC (ex Article 177), the Court does not have jurisdiction to
     interpret national law or to give a ruling on the compatibility of     in Case C-336/97: Commission of the European Communi-
     a national measure with Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
     amendment, Article 87 EC). However, where an application is
     made to a national court that it should draw the appropriate
     inferences from infringement of the final sentence of Article          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incom-
     88(3) EC (ex Article 93(3)), it may seek clarification from the                  plete transposition of Directive 82/501/EEC)
     Commission on that point or, in accordance with the second and
     third paragraphs of Article 234 EC, it may or must refer a
     question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpret-                                  (1999/C 226/13)
     ation of Article 92 of the Treaty, in order to determine whether
     the State measures in question constitute State aid which should
     have been notified to the Commission.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. Application to an undertaking of a system of the kind introduced
     by Italian Law No 95/79 of 3 April 1979, and derogating                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     from the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency, is to be                            in the European Court Reports)
     regarded as giving rise to the grant of State aid, within the
     meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, where it is established
     that the undertaking                                                   In Case C-336/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli, assisted by Claudio Tesauro) v Italian
                                                                            Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del
     — has been permitted to continue trading in circumstances in           Gaizo) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
          which it would not have been permitted to do so if the rules      ensure that emergency plans are drawn up for action outside
          of ordinary law relating to insolvency had been applied, or       the establishments in respect of whose industrial activity
                                                                            notification has been given pursuant to Article 5 of Council
                                                                            Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident
                                                                            hazards of certain industrial activities (OJ 1982 L 230, p. 1),
     — has enjoyed one or more advantages, such as a State                  and by failing to organise inspections or other measures of
          guarantee, a reduced rate of tax, exemption from the              control proper to the type of industrial activity concerned, in
          obligation to pay fines and other pecuniary penalties or de       breach of the third indent of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of
          facto waiver of public debts wholly or in part, which could       that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
          not have been claimed by another insolvent undertaking            obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
          under the application of the rules of ordinary law relating to    composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
          insolvency.                                                       G.F. Mancini, J.L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hew-
                                                                            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. Since it is established that a system such as that established by        17 June 1999, in which it
     Law No 95/79 is in itself capable of giving rise to the grant of
     State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, that      1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that emergency plans are
     system cannot be put into operation unless it has been notified to          drawn up for action outside the establishments in respect of
     the Commission and, if it has been so notified, before the                  whose industrial activity notification has been given pursuant to
     Commission has made a decision acknowledging that the aid                   Article 5 of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982
     plan is compatible with the common market, or, if the Com-                  on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities, and
     mission takes no decision within a period of two months from                by failing to organise inspections or other measures of control
     the notification. before that period has expired.                           proper to the type of industrial activity concerned, in breach of
                                                                                the third indent of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of the directive,
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder;
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                  2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-469/04 (1)

   (2006/C 60/66)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 16 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-469/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.


title: Case C-401/07: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-401/07) (1)

   (2008/C 285/54)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-223/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): AstraZeneca A/S v Lægemiddelstyrelsen (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation of a generic medicinal product — Withdrawal of the marketing authorisation of the reference medicinal product — Abridged procedure)

text:
C 289/2                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                       of 16 October 2003                                  in Case C-223/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Østre Landsret): AstraZeneca A/S v Lægemiddelstyr-
                                                                                elsen (1)
in Case C-339/00: Ireland v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)                                   (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation of a generic
                                                                           medicinal product — Withdrawal of the marketing authoris-
                                                                           ation of the reference medicinal product — Abridged pro-
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years                                                          cedure)
1997 and 1998 — Aid for afforestation of agricultural land
— Article 2(1)(c) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/                                           (2003/C 289/03)
92 — Concept of a ‘private-law legal person’ — Principle of
the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to cooperate
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                           in good faith)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2003/C 289/02)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         In Case C-223/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC by the Østre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the proceedings pending before that court between Astra-
                                                                           Zeneca A/S and Lægemiddelstyrelsen, participant: Generics
                                                                           (UK) Ltd, on the interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC
                                                                           of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
In Case C-339/00, Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted by               down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
R. Brady, SC, and A. M. Collins, BL) v Commission of the                   medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966,
European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and K. Fitch,                     p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June
assisted by J. O’Reilly, SC): Application for annulment of                 1993 (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 22), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding                   composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by                   R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                       J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes from Community             16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
financing the sum of EUR 4 844 345,35 in afforestation aid
paid by Ireland for the financial years 1997 and 1998, the                 1.   On a proper construction of point 8(a)(iii) of the third
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,                          paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of                    26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr                          down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                         medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 93/39/
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                EEC of 14 June 1993, ‘product ... marketed’ refers to
has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                           a medicinal product which has been granted a marketing
                                                                                authorisation in the Member State concerned.
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2.   In order for an application for marketing authorisation of a
                                                                                generic medicinal product to be dealt with by way of the
                                                                                abridged procedure provided for in point 8(a)(iii) of the third
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                          paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 65/65, as amended, it is
                                                                                necessary and sufficient that the marketing authorisation of the
                                                                                reference medicinal product be in force in the Member State
                                                                                concerned on the date of that application.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.


title: Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-193/96)

text:
8 . 2 . 97            I tN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40 / 23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          27 July 1995 seeking, first, the provision of a valid
                                                                             staff report for 1991 to 1993 and , second, payment of
The applicant, an Italian steel company in liquidation, has
                                                                             compensation for the non-material damage suffered as
brought an action directed principally against the same                      a result of non-compliance with the rules on the
decision which is the subject matter of Cases T-l 64/96
                                                                             drawing-up of staff reports and the belated inclusion
Moccia Irme SpA v. Commission and T-l 65/96 Prolafer v.
Commission, in so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                             of the report in his personal file,
The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
already relied on in the abovementioned cases.                               decision of 18 July 1996 expressly rejecting the
                                                                             applicant's complaint No R/l 47/96 ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non
                                                                             material damage suffered, in the sum of Bfrs 500 000
Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Salini                                 or such other sum as the Court may consider fair and
Costruttori SpA against the Commission of the European                       reasonable,
                            Communities
                         ( Case T-l 88/96 )                             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 40/54 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant contests the fact that, on 20 January 1995 ,
An action against the Commission of the European                        the appointing authority officially recorded receipt of his
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       staff report for 1991 to 1993 and placed it on his personal
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     file, whereas that report was merely a reiteration of his
 1996 by Salini Costruttori SpA, whose registered office is             report for the period 1989 to 1991 .
in Rome, represented by Jean-Pierre Cuny, of the                        By note dated 25 July 1995 , the applicant submitted a
Versailles Bar ( France ).                                              request within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff
The applicant claims that the Court should declare                      Regulations, applying in particular for a report to be
unlawful the Commission's failure to fulfil its obligation              drawn up in the prescribed manner in respect of the
to address to the Italian Government a decision based on                period under consideration . The Commission expressly
Article 93 ( 2 ) and Article 101 of the Treaty.                         rejected the request. The complaint lodged against the
                                                                        rejection decision was partially refused, in that the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    administration offered him, by way of reparation for the
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                   non-material damage suffered, compensation of
 those relied on in Case T-l 87/96 .                                    Bfrs 35 000 .
                                                                        The present action is directed against that latter decision .
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that there
                                                                         has been a breach of the duty to have regard for the
 Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Lars Bo                           welfare and interests of officials, a breach of the principle
 Rasmussen against the Commission of the European                        of equality of treatment and an infringement of Articles 26
                             Communities
                                                                         and 43 of the Staff Regulations .
                          ( Case T-193/96 )
                                                                         He observes in that regard that the reiterated staff report,
                              ( 97/C 40/55 )                             corresponding to the period from 1989 to 1991 , covered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        only four months spent in Directorate D of DG V. That
                                                                         report was drawn up by the Director-General of the
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Translation Service and, since the applicant was assigned
  Communities was brought before the Court of First                      on    1   March    1991    to  the   Directorate-General    for
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     Employment, there has necessarily been a radical change
  1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim                          of duties, and also of reporting officer. In those
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                  circumstances, reiteration of the staff report should not
  Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          and could not have been possible .
  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          In addition, the applicant considers that he is entitled, like
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                            any other official , to a valid staff report, so that the
  — annul the decision of the appointing authority                        competent authorities can decide on his eligibility for
        rejecting the applicant's request No D/661 /95 of                 promotion and career.


title: Case C-158/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/30

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias
      (Case C-158/16)
      (2016/C 211/38)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Oviedo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Margarita Isabel Vega González

         Defendant: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administración del Principado de Asturias

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the term ‘employment conditions’ in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 … be interpreted as including a legal situation in which a fixed-term worker who has been elected to political office as a member of Parliament may, in the same way as a permanent member of staff, apply for and be granted a break in the service relationship with the employer so as to be reinstated in the same post once the relevant parliamentary term of office has expired?

                  2.

                  Must the principle of non-discrimination referred to in Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work [concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 … be interpreted as precluding regional legislation such as Article 59(2) of the Law [of the Principality of Asturias] 3/1985 [of 26 December 1985] on the organisation of the civil service [of the Government of the Principality of Asturias], which totally and absolutely precludes giving an ‘interino’ civil servant special service leave in the event of being elected a member of Parliament, when that right is given to career civil servants?

         (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 July 2003 in Case T-81/02 Margot Wagemann-Reuter v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Staff case — Leave on personal grounds — Vacant post — Upgrading of post — Reinstatement)

text:
C 226/16               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers, supported
                                                                          by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea), against
                         of 17 June 2003                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and A.P. Bentley), supported by TNC
in Case T-385/00 Jean-Paul Seiller v European Investment                  Kazchrome, established in Almaty (Kazakhstan) and by Alloy
                              Bank (1)                                    2000 SA, established in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                          J. Flynn, J. Magnin and S. Mills — application for partial annul-
(European Investment Bank — Staff — Admissibility —                       ment of Commission Decision 2001/230/EC of 21 February
Clarity of the application — Confirmatory act — Action                    2001 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning
brought late — Previous conciliation procedure — Pension                  imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, the People's
rights — Luxembourg law — Settlement — Fraudulent mis-                    Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine and
                          representation)                                 Venezuela (OJ 2001 L 84, p. 36) in so far it concerns imports
                                                                          originating in the People's Republic of China, Russia, Ukraine
                         (2003/C 226/32)                                  and Kazakhstan — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                          Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of N.J. Forwood,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
                                                                          Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio Gonzalez, Principal Administrator,
In Case T-385/00 Jean-Paul Seiller, residing in Luxembourg,               has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which it:
represented by D. Chouanier and L. Thielen, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Investment Bank (Agents: E. Uhlmann, C. Gómez de la Cruz                  1.    Dismissed the action;
and P. Mousel) — application for payment of the sum of
LUF 4779652, together with interest, due to him in respect of
his pension rights — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),         2.    Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and                   severally, those incurred by the Commission and by the interve-
J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                      ners TNC Kazchrome and Alloy 2000, including the costs of the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2003 in which it:                    interlocutory proceedings;
                                                                          3.    Ordered the Kingdom of Spain, intervener, to bear its own costs.
1.   Dismisses the application;
2.   Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay those
     incurred by the EIB.                                                 (1) OJ No C 227 of 11.8.01.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 July 2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-81/02 Margot Wagemann-Reuter v Court of
                                                                                Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                          of 8 July 2003
                                                                          (Staff case — Leave on personal grounds — Vacant post —
in Case T-132/01: Euroalliages and Others v Commission                                   Upgrading of post — Reinstatement)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/34)
(Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review —
      Community interest — Application for annulment)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                         (2003/C 226/33)
                                                                          In Case T-81/02 Margot Wagemann-Reuter, an official of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                          Luxembourg, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, with an
In Case T-132/01: Euroalliages, established in Brussels                   address for service in Luxembourg, against the Court of
(Belgium), Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in                    Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: originally,
Courbevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön              J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer, later J.-M. Stenier,
(Sweden), Ferroatlántica, SL, established in Madrid (Spain),              M. Bavendam and I. Riagáin) — application for, first,
 ---pagebreak--- 20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/17
annulment of the implied decision of the Court of Auditors                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
rejecting the applicant's request for reinstatement following                                         INSTANCE
leave on personal grounds of 22 January 2001, and the Court
of Auditors" decision of 12 December 2001 rejecting the com-                                       of 15 May 2003
plaint lodged by the applicant on 14 August 2001 and, second,
compensation for material and non-material loss allegedly suf-            in Case T-47/03 R: Jose Maria Sison v Council of the
fered by the applicant, — the Court of First Instance (R. García-                                  European Union
Valdecasas, single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 2003, in which it:             (Interlocutory proceedings — Restrictive measures with a
                                                                          view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds —
                                                                          Disallowance of benefits — Partial inadmissibility of the
1.   Dismisses the application;                                                       orders sought — Urgency — Absence)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/36)
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case T-47/03 R, Jose Maria Sison, resident in Utrecht (the
(1) OJ No C 131 of 1 June 2002.                                           Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H.E. Schultz,
                                                                          D. Gurses, T. Olsson and J. Lamchek, lawyers, against Council
                                                                          of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and
                                                                          M. Bishop): Application for, first, an order suspending the
                                                                          operation of Decision 2002/974/EC implementing Article 2
                                                                          (3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive mea-
                                                                          sures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC
                                                                          (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 85) in so far as it mentions the name of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                  applicant, second, an order requesting the Council not to
                                                                          include the applicant in any new decision implementing
in Case T-287/02 Asian Institute of Technology v                          Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, third, an order
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         requesting the Council to inform all Member States that the
                                                                          restrictive measures adopted in relation to the applicant have
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research                   no legal basis, the President of the Court of First Instance made
            contract — Time-limit — Inadmissible)                         an order on 15 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
                         (2003/C 226/35)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-287/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), whose              2.   Costs are reserved.
registered office is at Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by
H. Teissier du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 July
2000 to conclude a research contract under the ‘Asia-Invest’
programme with the Center for Energy-Environment Research
and Development — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 25 June 2003, in which it:                                                           of 16 May 2003
                                                                          in Case T-140/03: Forum 187 ASBL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.   Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Declining of jurisdiction)
2.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by
     the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 226/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.                                                 In Case T-140/03, Forum 187 ASBL, represented by A. Sutton
                                                                          and J. Killick, Barristers, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, R. Lyal and G. Rozet):


title: Case C-272/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Werner Bouwens

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Werner Bouwens
   (Case C-272/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/65)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-214/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Paul Alfons Rehbein v OHIM — Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Dias Martinho (Outburst)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/32

         Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Paul Alfons Rehbein v OHIM — Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Dias Martinho (Outburst)
   (Case T-214/08)
   (2008/C 197/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG (Glinde, Germany) (represented by: T. E. Lampel, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Carlos Dias Martinho (Le Plessis Trévise, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2008 in case R 1261/2007-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Outburst’ for goods in classes 16, 18 and 25 — application No 4 318 333

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘Outburst’ for goods in class 25 — German trade mark registration No 399 40 713

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the earlier national trade mark has been put to genuine use in connection with the goods and services in respect of which it is registered; infringement of Article 76(1)(f) of the said regulation as the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the affidavit of the applicant's managing director; infringement of Article 74(2) of the said regulation and of Rul 22(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the further evidence submitted at the appeal's stage of the opposition proceedings is admissible and has to be taken into account when assessing the genuine use of the opposition mark; infringement of applicant's right to be heard as the Board of Appeal should have taken into account evidence of use submitted after the time limit.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-457/06 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2006 by the Republic of Finland against the order of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/43

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2006 by the Republic of Finland against the order of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-457/06 P)
   (2006/C 326/88)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by E. Bygglin)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities and declare the action brought by Finland under Article 230 EC admissible and remit the main proceedings to the Court of First Instance, in which the Commission should be ordered to reimburse Finland also the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
   Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by considering that the contested decision of the Commission did not constitute a decision against which an action may be brought within the meaning of Article 230 EC.
   In Finland's view, the contested decision of the Commission constitutes a decision against which an action may be brought within the meaning of Article 230. By its decision the Commission in fact denied Finland the opportunity to make a conditional payment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.
   The contested decision thus has binding legal effects on Finland, as required in the case-law on the application of Article 230 EC, which affect Finland's interests and clearly change Finland's legal position. The contested decision also caused Finland a loss of rights and is thus clearly adverse to Finland.
   Finland submits that the Court of First Instance made several errors of law in assessing the case and as a result reached a decision contrary to Community law.


title: Case C-45/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2017 — Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Action for damages — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Material damage — Non-material damage — Error of assessment in respect of the amount of compensation — None — Cross-appeal — Conditions governing the incurring of the European Union’s non-contractual liability — Obligation to substantiate the restrictive measures — Sufficiently serious breach)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2017 — Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-45/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for damages - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Material damage - Non-material damage - Error of assessment in respect of the amount of compensation - None - Cross-appeal - Conditions governing the incurring of the European Union’s non-contractual liability - Obligation to substantiate the restrictive measures - Sufficiently serious breach))
   (2017/C 249/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Gray, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals brought by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. and the Council of the European Union;

               2.

               Orders Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-12/99)

text:
13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/21
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of            Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl,
the European Communities against the Portuguese                   established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on
                            Republic                              29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                       (Case C-12/99)                             T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                       (1999/C 71/36)
                                                                                (Case C-13/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/37)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and              between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European
António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of        the European Communities on 18 January 1999 by TEAM
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner             Srl, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                Roberti, with an address for service at the offices of
                                                                  Studio Legale Tizzano, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, 1000
                                                                  Brussels.
                                                                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                      1998 in Case T-13/96;
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
    necessary to comply with Council Directive                        proceedings.
    94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on the
    establishment of a European Works Council or a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
    Community-scale groups of undertakings for the                1. On 11 May 1998 the Court of First Instance adopted
    purposes of informing and consulting employees                    a measure of organisation of procedure in the form of
    within the period prescribed by Article 14(1) thereof,            a request to the Commission to produce copies of the
    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its                  documents relating to the contested tender procedure.
    obligations under the first paragraph of Article 5 and            That measure had in fact been applied for by the
    the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty               appellant as early as 26 January 1996, when it first
    as well as under Article 14(1) of Directive 94/45/EC;             brought the action, that is to say, over two years
    and                                                               previously. In addition, the measure in question was
                                                                      adopted six months after the closure of the written
                                                                      procedure, in the context of the oral hearing. In the
                                                                      appellant's view, that manner of proceeding constitutes
                                                                      a clear violation of the rights of the defence, since the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      delay attending the adoption of the measure was
                                                                      excessive and unjustified.
                                                                  2. The Court of First Instance refused to take into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   consideration crucial documents submitted by the
                                                                      appellant during the course of the hearing. According
                                                                      to the appellant, the Court of First Instance distorted'
                                                                      the evidence submitted by the appellant, inasmuch as
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                   it stated that that evidence was irrelevant' for the
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                   purposes of determining the dispute. Moreover, the
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                  Court of First Instance provided no reasons for its
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                  decision.
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period         3. In seeking to ascertain and characterise the reparable
expired on 22 September 1996 without Portugal having                  damage, the Court of First Instance completely
brought into force the necessary provisions.                          distorted the nature of the damage as claimed by the
                                                                      appellant. In addition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                      manifestly failed to provide a statement of reasons,
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                       inasmuch as it did not furnish a clear explanation of
                                                                      its reasons for completely disregarding the legal
                                                                      presentation by the appellant of its case,
                                                                      notwithstanding that this was clearly set out and fully
                                                                      argued by the latter.


title: Case T-778/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark COYOTE UGLY — Relative grounds for refusal — Revocation of the earlier Community word mark — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No non-registered mark — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)
   (Case T-778/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark COYOTE UGLY - Relative grounds for refusal - Revocation of the earlier Community word mark - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No non-registered mark - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rejection of the opposition))
   (2016/C 136/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ugly, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Mackey, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 (Case R 1369/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ugly, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-75/97)

text:
No C 166/18           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  31 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Biichel &C Co.                   The Reference Regulation makes provision for the
Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Council of the                 Commission to grant exemptions to assemblers who do
                       European Union                               not satisfy the factual preconditions for circumvention .
                        ( Case T-74/97 )                            Pure importers of bicycle parts, on the other hand, are
                                                                    subject to the end-use procedure before the national
                          97/C 166/37
                                                                    customs authorities, introduced by the Reference
               (Language of the case: German)                       Regulation . That procedure makes the exemption under
                                                                    the Basic Regulation for undertakings which do not satisfy
                                                                    the factual preconditions for circumvention subject to
An action against the Council of the European Union was             further conditions, which were not provided for by the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Basic Regulation and were therefore adopted without legal
Communities on 28 March 1997 by Biichel & Co. Fahr                 basis . Those further conditions lead, moreover, to a
zeugteilefabrik GmbH, Fulda ( Federal Republic of                   restriction on the free movement of goods in the
Germany ), represented by Wolfgang A. Rehmann, Rechts              Community and will therefore offend against the principle
anwalt, and Ute Zinsmeister, Rechtsanwaltin, Brussels,              of the free movement of goods . In addition, the end-use
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    procedure results in breach of the right to property and,
Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .                   because of the different treatment of assemblers and
                                                                    importers, offends against the principle of equal treatment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97,                        The applicant contends in an ancillary claim that
                                                                    Article 13 of the Basic Regulation, which constitutes the
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that           legal basis for the Reference Regulation, is inconsistent
     Article 13 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 is           with Article VI of the GATT and the Agreement on
     inapplicable in so far as it constitutes the legal basis       Implementation of Article VI, since it allows duty to be
     for Regulation No 71 /97,                                      imposed in the case of circumvention without injury to the
                                                                    Community industry having to be proved . It contends
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                             additionally that Article VI of the GATT is infringed on
                                                                    the basis that, according to Article 13 of the Basic
                                                                    Regulation, duty can be imposed in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 circumvention even if the goods are assembled or
                                                                    produced by a person who is not connected with an
The applicant produces mainly bicycle parts and trades               importer or producer whose exports of like products are
additionally in individual bicycle parts ( not produced in          subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty.
kits ), which are imported, inter alia, from the People's
Republic of China .
In this action, the applicant challenges Council Regulation
( EC ) No 71/97 (the 'Reference Regulation'), by which the
duty originally introduced for bicycles originating in the
People's Republic of China was extended to the import of             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Biichel & Co. Fahr
bicycle parts originating in that country. Although the              zeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Commission of the
applicant does not satisfy the factual preconditions for                               European Communities
circumvention, it was not granted exemption from the                                         Case T-75 /97 )
duty applicable in the case of circumvention.
                                                                                97/C 166/38
The applicant contends that the Reference Regulation
should be annulled and relies thereby essentially on the                           (Language of the case: German)
 following grounds .
While the Commission investigation which led to adoption             An action against the Commission of the European
 of the Reference Regulation related solely to the import of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
 complete, pre-assembled bicycle parts ( assemblies), the            Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
 duty applicable in the case of circumvention was imposed            by Biichel & Co . Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH, Fulda
 not only on the relevant assemblies but also on individual           (Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Wolfgang
 bicycle parts, irrespective of whether or not they were             A. Rehmann, Rechtsanwalt, and Ute Zinsmeister,
 placed in kits . Such extension of the measures is not              Rechtsanwaltin, Brussels, with an address for service in
 covered by Article 13 of Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 (the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn 8c Schmitt, 62
 'Basic Regulation ').                                               Avenue Guillaume .
 The extension of the anti-dumping duty to individual
 bicycle parts also offends against the principle of                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
 proportionality, since the measure chosen is not
 appropriate for achievement of the objective in view and
 is not the least onerous means .                                     — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 88/97,
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/ 19
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that            Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
     Council Regulation ( EC ) No 71/97 is inapplicable in           by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Sofivo
     so far as it constitutes the legal basis for Regulation        Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
     No 88/97,                                                      established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Denkavit France,
                                                                    established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that           established at Perigueux ( France ), Serval, established at
     Article 13 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 is           Sainte Eanne ( France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
     inapplicable in so far as it constitutes the legal basis       Bourgbarre ( France ), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
     for Regulations ( EC ) No 71/97 and (EC ) No 88/97,             ( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel
                                                                    ( France ), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                            ( France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot
                                                                    ( France ), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 ( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau
                                                                    ( France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
The applicant has already, with Case T-74/97, brought an            Chateaubourg ( France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
action against the Council before the Court of First                Jacut du Mene ( France ), and Vals, established at
Instance of the European Communities .                              Champagne ( France ), represented by Philippe Denesle, of
                                                                    the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In the present action, the applicant challenges Commission          at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
Regulation (EC ) No 88/97 ( the 'Exemption Regulation'),
which lays down the detailed rules for the procedure for            The applicants claim that the Court should:
the exemption of undertakings provided for by Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 (the 'Reference Regulation').           — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97
The Reference Regulation extended the duty originally                     adopted on 31 January 1997,
introduced for bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to the import of bicycle parts                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
originating in that country. Although the applicant does
not satisfy the factual preconditions for circumvention, it         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
was not granted exemption from the duty applicable in
the case of circumvention .                                         The applicants, who are also the applicants in Cases T-14/
                                                                    97, T-15/97, T-20/97 (^ and T-61/97 ( 2), are contesting the
The applicant contends that the Exemption Regulation                way in which, by establishing a supplementary early
should be annulled and relies thereby essentially on the            marketing premium in the beef and veal sector, Regulation
following grounds .                                                 ( EC ) No 200/97 ( 3 ) purports to tackle the unequal
                                                                    treatment and anti-competitive discrimination criticized in
The end-use system before the national customs                      the applications lodged in the cases cited above .
authorities introduced for importers by the Exemption
Regulation, which does not grant undertakings an                    According to the applicants, the Commission has adopted,
exemption automatically if they do not satisfy the factual          in the contested measure, the principle of the payment of
preconditions for circumvention but makes exemption                 a supplementary premium, which, although introducing a
dependent on further conditions, is not covered by                  differentiation as regards the amount of the aid,
Article 3 of the Reference Regulation and Article 13 of             nevertheless fails to remedy the unequal treatment and
Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 ( the 'Basic Regulation') and           anti-competitive discrimination in any way. In their view,
therefore lacks a legal basis .                                     the grant of a supplementary premium in the same
                                                                    amount, the sole consideration for which is the weight of
In addition, the applicant pleads in an ancillary claim the         the slaughtered animal, without taking into account any
inapplicability of the Reference Regulation and Article 13          other objective market factor, cannot restore a balance
of the Basic Regulation in so far as they constitute the            between competing products .
legal basis for the Exemption Regulation. The applicant
relies in that regard essentially on the arguments already          The applicants have stated in their previous applications
made in Case T-74/97 .                                              that, since the average carcase weight qualifying for the
                                                                    premium may vary from one Member State to the next,
                                                                    without such variation being justified by objective,
                                                                    relevant divergences, the provisions in issue did not
                                                                    comply with Article 40 of the Treaty. In the contested act,
                                                                    however, the Commission once again adopts reference
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others                weights without providing any objective data .
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-76/97 )                             In addition, however, and as their main point, the
                         ( 97/C 166/39 )                            applicants state that, whilst the Commission is right in its
                                                                    view that production no longer meets normal demand in
               (Language of the case: French)                       the market, the provisions adopted by it cannot remedy
                                                                    the effect under consideration . The supplementary
An action against the Commission of the European                    premium of ECU 10 per 108 kilograms in respect of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   animals reared in France does not in any way permit the


title: Case C-427/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2015 — New Wave CZ a.s. v Alltoys spol. s r. o.

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2015 — New Wave CZ a.s. v Alltoys spol. s r. o.
   (Case C-427/15)
   (2015/C 371/17)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: New Wave CZ a.s.

      Defendant: Alltoys spol. s r. o.

      Question referred

   Must Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right if, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was declared that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed (for example, for the purpose of being able to quantify the damage precisely and subsequently seek compensation for it)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.