title: Removal from the register of C-64/97

text:
27 . 9 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/27
          Removal from the register of C-328/95 (')                           Removal from the register of C-64/97 ( ! )
                          ( 97/C 295/54 )                                                       ( 97/C 295/55 )
By order of 3 July 1997 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register                By order of 3 July 1997 the President of the Court of
of Case C-328/95 : Commission of the European                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities v. Italian Republic .                                    removal from the register of Case C-64/97: Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
H OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                     o OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.


title: Case C-176/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/20

         Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission
   (Case C-176/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni, G. Pescatore, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full.

               —

               Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following three grounds on the plea of inadmissibility:
   FIRST GROUND: Error in law and in fact regarding the lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. The General Court, in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the order, erroneously ruled that the applicant had no legal interest in applying for annulment of the Regulation, identifying by means of illogical reasoning the distributors of third party brands as the sole beneficiaries of the annulment of the contested Regulation exclusively, and not Proforec directly.
   SECOND GROUND: Failure by the General Court to apply Article 263(4) of TFEU to the consideration of the applicant’s legal interest in bringing proceedings, which was denied.
   THIRD GROUND: In paragraphs 32 to 35 of the order of inadmissibility, the General Court did not give an adequate statement of reasons for the applicant’s lack of legal interest, in that it misrepresented the facts concerning the lack of risk of legal proceedings being brought against Proforec, failing to consider it as an existing risk on the date the proceedings were started, and not taking any position on the obvious infringement of the regulation in relation to the omission of a transitional period for the disposal of stocks and packaging.


title: Appeal brought on 4 January 1995 by Asociación Española de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne) against the order made on 20 October 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-99/94 between Asociación Española de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne) and Council of the European Union (Case C-10/95 P)

text:
 No C 54/10         I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission                     The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Regulation (EEC) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff         1 . annul the order; and
 quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of tropical
 storm Debbie ( l ) and order the Commission to pay the              2 . declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, join
costs .                                                                   the question of admissibility to the substance and refer
                                                                          the case back to the Court of First Instance, continuing
                                                                          proceedings from the stage at which they were stayed,-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           for a decision on the admissiblity of the applications to
                                                                          intervene .
Insufficient legal basis: Article 30 of Council Regulation
 (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organization of the
market in bananas permits the adoption of specific                   Pleas in law and main arguments
transitional measures solely in order to assist the transition
                                                                     The true nature of Council Directive 93/118/EC of
to the single market from the arrangements existing prior to
its entry into force; it cannot serve as the legal basis for the     22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the
contested Regulation. In the first place, tropical storm             financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
Debbie has nothing to do with problems relating to the               and poultrymeat (*), hereinafter referred to as 'the contested
transition. Secondly, it was certainly not the Council's             directive', is that of a decision. The margin of discretion
intention to create by means of Article 30 the possibility of        enjoyed by the Member States under the contested
adopting measures which coincide with previously existing            Directive, in so far as it amends Directive 85/73/EEC, is
national measures. The purpose of the latter was principally,        merely token and virtually without effect. A correct and
and sometimes exclusively, to protect national markets. The          comprehensive reading of the directive reveals that the use of
introduction of the single market is intended to remove such         the verb 'may' is merely rhetorical. The contested directive is
                                                                     of direct and individual concern to the members of Asocarne
protective measures. The Commission cannot, therefore,
use Article 30 as a basis for establishing measures similar to       who have a veterinary registration number and were liable
those which existed prior to the single market.                      for fees before its entry into force, so that Asocarne has
                                                                     standing to bring this action inasmuch as the contested
                                                                     directive is of direct and individual concern to its
The allocation of the additional quantity is incompatible            members .
with Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 :
Article 1 ( 1 ) of the contested regulation allocates the
additional quantity solely among operators affected by the           Contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance, in the
storm, although Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )              case of directives, the judicial protection of individuals is not
No 404/93 makes no provision for derogating from the                 duly and sufficiently assured by the national courts. The
method of allocation it lays down.                                   administration of justice is necessarily subject to delay.
                                                                    Moreover, some Spanish courts have demonstrated a certain
                                                                    reluctance to make references for preliminary rulings under
(!) OJ No L 296 , 17. 11 . 1990, p . 33 .                           Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
                                                                     (M OJ No L 340, 31 . 12 . 1993, p. 15 .
Appeal brought on 4 January 1995 by Asociacion Espanola
de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne) against the order made
on 20 October 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of             Action brought on 13 January 1995 by the Commission of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  the European Communities against the Kingdom of
T-99/94 between Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la                                            Belgium
   Carne (Asocarne) and Council of the European Union                                        (Case C-ll/95 )
                       (Case C-10/95 P)                                                       ( 95/C 54/18 )
                          (95/C 54/17)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
An appeal against the order made on 20 October 1994 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the             represented by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                    as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities in Case T-99/94 between
                                                                    office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne)
and Council of the European Union was brought before the
Court ofJustice of the European Communities on 4 January            The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1995 by Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne
(Asocarne), represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez, of the          1 . declare that,
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, BP                        — by maintaining in respect of the French community
1107, Luxembourg L-1011 .                                                     in the French-speaking region a system of prior


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte: Terence Perkins (Case C-168/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/ 11
1 . in cases of under-representation under paragraph 3 ( 1 )             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     and (2 ) of the Hessen Equal Rights Law ( HGlG )                    Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC H laying down a
     selection decisions under paragraph 10 of the HGlG,                 procedure for the provision of information in the field
     where a woman and a man applicant have equal                        of technical standards and regulations,
     qualifications, must because of the binding nature of
     the targets in the women's advancement plan under
     paragraph 5 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) of the HGlG be in favour of         — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     the woman applicant in the individual case, at least if             proceedings .
     that is necessary for fulfilling the targets and no
     reasons of greater legal weight are opposed;
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . the binding targets of the women's advancement plan
     for posts in the academic service to be filled for fixed        In view of the fact that the description ' Italian-type rural
     terms    and   for  academic assistants     must,   under       cock' has not been authorized by the Commission on the
     paragraph 5 ( 7 ) of the HGlG, provide for at least the         basis of any other Community rule ( for instance, as a
     same proportion of women as the proportion of                   designation of origin or geographical indication ) and that
     women among graduates ( subparagraph 7, sentence 1 ),           consequently it is indubitably subject to the arrangements
     holders of higher degrees ( subparagraph 7, sentence 2 )        laid down for technical standards by Directive 83/189/
     or students ( subparagraph 7, sentence 3 ) in the faculty       EEC, the Commission submits that, by adopting the
     in question;                                                    Decree of 17 December 1990 without having notified it at
                                                                     the draft stage, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
3 . in training-based professions in which women are                 obligations under Article 8 ( 1 ) of Directive 83/189/EEC.
     under-represented, under paragraph 7 ( 1 ) of the HGlG
     women are to be taken into account to the extent of at
                                                                     In the    Commission's view, the           Italian  Government
     least one half in allocating training places, except in         adopted the decree in question with the main purpose of
     the case of training courses in which the State                 introducing a technical regulation within the meaning of
     exclusively provides training;                                  Article 1 ( 5 ) of Directive 83/189/EEC.
4. in sectors in which women are under-represented,
     under paragraph 9 ( 1 ) of the HGlG at least as many            In the light of the provisions at issue as a whole, it is
     women as men, or all the women applicants, are to be            evident that they are designed to lay down the
     called to interview if they satisfy the conditions laid         characteristics which products must display for the
     down by law or otherwise for appointment to the post            purpose of being marketed under the mark in question, or
     or the office to be conferred;                                  to describe the processes relating to their production. Any
                                                                     other provision contained therein is of a merely ancillary
                                                                     nature and function in relation to the prescription of a
5 . in making appointments to commissions, advisory                  technical standard .
     boards, boards of directors and supervisory boards
     and other collegiate bodies, under paragraph 14 of the
     HGlG at least half the members should be women ?                The Commission further submits that the breach of the
                                                                     notification procedure laid down by the Directive means
                                                                     that the technical regulation at issue cannot be relied on
                                                                     as against third parties.
                                                                     (') OJ No L 109, 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-160/97)
                         ( 97/C 199/21 )
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  Court, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by
                                                                     order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of The
25 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its                Queen against Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte:
                                                                                Terence Perkins
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                       ( Case C-168/97)
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/22 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— declare that, by adopting the Decree of the Ministry of             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
      Agriculture and Forests of 17 December 1990 without             Court, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of
      having notified it at the draft stage, the Italian              13 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
on 2 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC (2 ) on
The Queen against Secretary of State for Defence, ex                          the approximation of provisions laid down by
parte: Terence Perkins, on the following question(s ):                        law, regulation or administrative action relating
                                                                              to veterinary medicinal products and laying down
1 . Must the requirement in Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council                        additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
     Directive 76/207/EEC (') ('the Equal Treatment                           medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed
     Directive') that there shall be ' no discrimination on the               to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
     grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference                Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 of
     in particular to marital or family status' be interpreted                Directive 92/74/EEC,
     as including discrimination based on a person's sexual
     orientation ?                                                      — in the alternative, declare that, by not informing the
                                                                              Commission forthwith of such measures, the
     If the answer to question I is yes, then:                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned provisions;
2 . Whether a policy adopted by a Member State without
     any exception or qualification to discharge from the               — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     armed forces any person of homosexual orientation, is
     outside the scope of the EC Treaty and the legislation             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     thereunder if the Member State considers that it is
     appropriate and necessary for the purposes of ensuring
     combat effectiveness of its armed forces in the event of           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     war and so for the essential purpose of the defence of             paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
     that Member State .                                                Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                        adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
                                                                        addressed to them into their domestic law before the
     If the answer to question 2 is 'no', then:                         expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
                                                                        to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
3 . Whether the policy adopted by "the Secretary of State               laid down in Article 10 of the Directive, expired on
     without any exception or qualification to discharge                31 December 1993 without the Portuguese Republic
     from the Services any person of homosexual                         having brought into force the necessary provisions .
     orientation is capable of being justified under Article 2
     (2 ) of the Equal Treatment Directive and, if so, what             (') OJ No L 2 97, 13 . 10. 1992 , p . 12 .
     approach and guidelines should be adopted in                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
     determining whether the policy is justified ?
(') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39,
    14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).                                            Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-l 70/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/24 )
Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                             Case C-169/97 )                            on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                             ( 97/C 199/23 )
                                                                        of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
An action brought against the Portuguese Republic was                   Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
European Communities, representend by Francisco de
Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Commission Directive 91/412/EEC ( 1 ) of 23 July 1991
                                                                               laying down the principles and guidelines of good
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    manufacturing practice for veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                      its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the EC Treaty and Article 15 of Directive 91 /412/
      Council Directive 92/74/EEC (') of 22 September 1992                     EEC ,


title: Case F-85/07: Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Anselmo and Others v Council

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/71

         Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Anselmo and Others v Council
   (Case F-85/07)
   (2007/C 269/129)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Ana Anselmo (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, first, the decisions of the appointing authority of 11 May 2007, rejecting the complaints brought by the applicants concerning a difference in treatment between, on the one hand, the successful candidates in internal competition N/277 and, on the other hand, the officials who benefit from the attestation procedure as defined by the Council decision of 2 December 2004 concerning the detailed rules for implementing the attestation procedure and, secondly, the decisions contested by those complaints;

               —

               find that there was an infringement of Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities by the non-recognition of seniority in grade in respect of the successful candidates in internal competition B/277;

               —

               find that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment and that of sound administration resulting both from the withdrawal of seniority in grade and the requirement of mobility which was imposed solely on successful candidates;

               —

               consequently, accord the successful candidates the seniority in grade by annulling the contested acts;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, successful candidates in internal competition B/277 published on 9 July 2007 by the General Secretariat of the Council, were first appointed in Category B maintaining the seniority of grade which they had acquired in Categories C and D. Later, their seniority in grade was limited to the date of taking up their new duties, although personnel who had reached Category B under the attestation procedure and not because of a competition were able to keep the seniority at issue. In those circumstances, the applicants rely on the infringement of the provisions and breach of the principles cited in the forms of order sought above.


title: Case C-546/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-546/15) (1)

   (2016/C 260/45)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case T-180/14: Action brought on 14 March 2014 — Front Polisario v Council

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/33

         Action brought on 14 March 2014 — Front Polisario v Council
   (Case T-180/14)
   2014/C 184/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Front populaire pour la liberation de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (Laâyoune) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its action for annulment to be admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Council;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on 12 pleas in law in support of its action against Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. (1)

   The applicant considers that, as representative of the Sahrawi people, it is directly and individually affected by that act.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, the contested decision not permitting an understanding of how the Council integrated into its decision-making process the fact that the Western Sahara is a non-self-governing territory occupied by the Kingdom of Morocco.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of consultation, the Council having taken the contested decision without consulting the applicant, whereas international law requires that the exploitation of natural resources of a people of a non-self-governing territory be conducted in consultation with its representatives. The applicant argues that it is the sole representative of the Sahrawi people.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of consistency, in so far as the contested decision allows the entry into force of an international agreement which applies in the territory of the Western Sahara even though no Member State has recognised the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco over the Western Sahara. The contested decision strengthens the Kingdom of Morocco’s control over the Sahrawi territory, which is contrary to the aid provided by the Commission to Sahrawi refugees. In addition, the contested decision is inconsistent with the usual reaction of the European Union to breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of international law and is contrary to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to achieve the goal of sustainable development.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the contested decision runs counter to the expectation the applicant garnered from the repeated statements by the European Union institutions on the conformity of the agreements concluded with the Kingdom of Morocco with international law.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, the contested decision being contrary to Article 2 of that agreement in so far as it infringes the right to self-determination.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in so far as the contested decision allows the entry into force of a protocol by which the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco set fishing quotas for waters not under their sovereignty and authorised European Union vessels to exploit fisheries resources under the sole sovereignty of the Sahrawi people.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to self-determination, the contested decision bolstering the Kingdom of Morocco’s control over the Western Sahara.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and of Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, the applicant not having been consulted even though the contested decision permits the exploitation of natural resources under the sole sovereignty of the Sahrawi people.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the relative effect of treaties, the contested decision giving rise to international obligations in respect of the applicant without its consent.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging infringement of international humanitarian law, in so far as the contested decision provides financial support to the Kingdom of Morocco’s policy of colonising the Western Sahara.

               12.

               Twelfth plea in law, based on the law of international responsibility, the contested decision engaging the international responsibility of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 349, p. 1.


title: Case F-27/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/44

         Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council
   (Case F-27/15)
   (2015/C 127/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing the rights of the applicants to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision to cancel all reimbursement of the applicants’ annual travel expenses from 2014;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-218/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 19 April 2016 — Aleksandra Kubicka

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 19 April 2016 — Aleksandra Kubicka
   (Case C-218/16)
   (2016/C 335/39)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

      Applicant in the main proceedings

   Aleksandra Kubicka

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(2)(k), Article 1(2)(1) and Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) be interpreted as permitting refusal to recognise the material effects of a legacy by vindication (legatum per vindicationem), as provided for by [Polish] succession law, if that legacy concerns the right of ownership of immovable property located in a Member State the law of which does not provide for legacies having direct material effect?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.


               7.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/29

         Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-12/12)
   2013/C 66/09
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland is required, under Article 27 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures it has taken in order to implement the Directive.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-491/08: Action brought on 12 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/27

         Action brought on 12 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-491/08)
   (2009/C 44/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, in respect of the planned tourist complex ‘Is Arenas’ in the Municipality of Narbolia, which concerns the habitats and species present in site ITB032228 ‘Is Arenas’:

                           —

                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC by failing to adopt, before 19 July 2006, preservation measures which, having regard to the conservation aim of that directive, are suitable for the purposes of preserving the relevant ecological interest represented at national level by the proposed site of Community importance (SCI) ITB032228 ‘Is Arenas’, and in particular by failing to prevent an activity likely seriously to endanger the ecological characteristics of the site (1); and

                           —

                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC by failing to adopt, after 19 July 2006, appropriate measures to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species, as well as disturbance of the species for which that SCI was designated; and

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission is aware that a tourist complex, which includes a golf course, is under construction within the Is Arenas SCI. In the Commission's view, the planned tourist infrastructure in the Is Arenas SCI is predominantly located in the areas which ensure the ecological connection between the two largest areas of pine forest. It is therefore likely to have a significant negative impact on such areas, and especially on their function as an ‘ecological link’.
   Moreover, among the undesirable features of the project, the Commission draws attention to the reduction and modification of original habitats, inter alia through the introduction of alien species such as grasses from the golf course; the loss of habitats; the effects of trampling and compaction of ground; the loss of spaces; the impact of the arrival of bathers on the habitats of the first coastal zone, which is particularly important as it contains the dune systems; and tree felling.

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


title: Case C-190/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO Immobilier S.a.r.l.

text:
13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/25
—     The object of Directive 2002/15/EC is not road safety                     within the areas of which those economic activities are
      because it is regulates working time rather than driving                  carried on, and by restricting exclusively to municipalities
      time. In contrast, Regulation No 3820/85 (2), which                       the conduct of the activity of posting advertisements,
      applies to all types of carriers, self-employed and                       results in giving surreptitious finance to the municipal
      employed, regulates driving time and breaks and rest                      advertising undertaking?
      periods.
—     Failure to state reasons: there is a failure to state the           3)    May Article 2 (ex Article 2), Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) (ex
      reasons for bringing self-employed operators within the                   Article 3), (as amended by Article 2(3) and Article 61(1)
      scope of the directive at issue. Recital 8 in the preamble                of the Treaty of Amsterdam), of Article 23 (ex Article 9),
      to the directive lacks precision.                                         of Article 27 (ex Article 29) (a) (b) and (d), and of
                                                                                Article 31 (ex Article 37) (1) and (3) of the EC Treaty be
                                                                                construed as meaning that they preclude a law of a
                                                                                Member State — in this instance, Italy — which provides
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                                for a tax on advertising and imposes payment of charges
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                                for public bill-posting, including that tax, payable to
    the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
    transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1).                                   municipalities which engage in the posting of bills on an
                                                                                exclusive basis?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
                        Immobilier S.a.r.l.                               Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                         (Case C-190/02)
                                                                                (Case C-192/02)
                         (2002/C 169/44)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/45)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 9 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 May
Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:                           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
1)    whether it is contrary to the proper interpretation of              Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
      Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 50 (ex Article 60) for the          Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      law of the Italian State to introduce, govern and make
      regulations for advertising tax and bill-posting charges,
      restricting the management of these exclusively to Italian
      municipalities, and whether the concept of the provision            In its application, as amended by the corrigendum lodged on
      of services, as provided in Article 50 (ex Article 60) of           28 May 2002, the applicant claims that the Court should:
      the EC Treaty, can include the activity pursued by the
      agencies of the municipal authorities or by entities
      entrusted with the operation of this field of economic              1.    declare that by:
      activity.
2)    Must Articles 81 (ex Article 85), 82 (ex Article 86),                     (a)   incorrectly transposing into Austrian law the defi-
      86 (ex Article 90) and 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty                      nitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in
      be construed as meaning that they preclude legislation                          Article 1(e) and (f) of Council Directive 75/442/
      which, by providing for a tax on outdoor advertising or a                       EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended, in
      charge for bill-posting payable to the municipalities                           conjunction with Annexes II A and II B thereto, and


title: Case C-70/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

         Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-70/07)
   (2007/C 69/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 6 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 177, 2002, p. 13.


title: Case C-25/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Figurative mark — Representation of a gold-coloured sweet wrapper — Distinctive character)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-25/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Figurative mark - Representation of a gold-coloured sweet wrapper - Distinctive character)
   (2006/C 212/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr, H. Wrage-Molkenthin and T. Reher, Lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case T-402/02 Storck v OHIM, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the refusal to register a figurative mark consisting of the representation of a sweet wrapper with twisted ends for confectionery within Class 30 — Distinctive character of a trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


               8.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/30

         Action brought on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-1/14)
   (2014/C 138/07)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 20 April 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 20 February 2013, regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-285/15: Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading v Council

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/45

         Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading v Council
   (Case T-285/15) (1)

   (2016/C 191/62)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2004 in Case T-325/02: Michel Soubies v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Re-assignment of an official in Grade A 3 as adviser ad personam — Restructuring of the Secretariat-General — Correspondence between grade and post)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 September 2004
   in Case T-325/02: Michel Soubies v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Re-assignment of an official in Grade A 3 as adviser ad personam - Restructuring of the Secretariat-General - Correspondence between grade and post)
   (2004/C 284/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In case T-352/02: Michel Soubies, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's Decision of 26 November 2001 re-assigning the applicant to the ‘Institutional matters’ unit of the ‘Forward Studies’ Directorate of the Secretariat–General as adviser ad personam in Grade A 3 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders both parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-11/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  11 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV, trading as Friesland Supply Point Ede v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen (Community Customs Code — Arrangements for processing under customs control — Refusal by the national customs authorities of an application for authorisation for processing under customs control — Binding nature of the conclusions of the Customs Code Committee — None — Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the validity of those conclusions in the context of Article 234 EC — None — Interpretation of Article 133(e) of the Customs Code — Interpretation of Articles 502(3) and 504(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Overall assessment of all the circumstances of the application for authorisation)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV, trading as Friesland Supply Point Ede v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen
   (Case C-11/05) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Arrangements for processing under customs control - Refusal by the national customs authorities of an application for authorisation for processing under customs control - Binding nature of the conclusions of the Customs Code Committee - None - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the validity of those conclusions in the context of Article 234 EC - None - Interpretation of Article 133(e) of the Customs Code - Interpretation of Articles 502(3) and 504(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Overall assessment of all the circumstances of the application for authorisation)
   (2006/C 165/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV, trading as Friesland Supply Point Ede

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 133(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.1) — Meaning of ‘without adversely affecting the essential interests of Community producers of similar goods’ (economic situation) — Arrangements for processing under customs control — Interpretation of Articles 502(3), 504(4) and 552 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 2003 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p.1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 (OJ 2001 L 141, p.1), and of Annex 76, Part B, thereto — Authorisation –Committee's conclusions — Assessment by the Court of Justice — Jurisdiction
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               In the assessment of an application for authorisation for processing under customs control pursuant to Article 133(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, account must be taken not only of the market for the finished products but also of the economic situation of the market for the raw materials used to produce those products.

               2.

               The criteria to be taken into consideration when assessing ‘processing activities to be created or maintained’ within the meaning of Article 133(e) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, and Article 502(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, may include the criterion relating to the creation of a minimum number of jobs on account of the processing activities envisaged, but is not limited to that criterion. Those criteria depend on the nature of the processing activity concerned, and the national customs authority responsible for examining the economic conditions under those provisions must make an overall assessment of all the relevant factors, including those concerning the number of jobs created, the value of the investment made and the permanence of the activity envisaged.

               3.

               The validity of conclusions of the Customs Code Committee issued in accordance with Article 133(e) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, cannot be examined within the framework of Article 234 EC.

               4.

               The Customs Code Committee's conclusion is not binding on national customs authorities when they are determining an application for authorisation for processing under customs control.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-279/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party — Action for annulment — Right to an effective judicial remedy)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS v European Commission
   (Case C-279/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) - European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party - Action for annulment - Right to an effective judicial remedy))
   (2016/C 279/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Borde and Carbonium SAS shall pay the costs jointly and severally.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-361/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Illegal and uncontrolled waste tips — Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/3

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-361/05) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Illegal and uncontrolled waste tips - Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón)
   (2007/C 155/04)
   Language of the Case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. del Cuvillo Contreras and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC, of 15 July 1975, on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón, situated in La Mojonera
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to ensure application of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste — as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 — and of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with regard to the waste tips at Níjar, Hoyo de Miguel and Cueva del Mojón (Province of Almería), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2000 in Case C-171/99 P: Clauni and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/5
(France), Loma SA, formerly SA Lomagenais, established at                 Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
Penne D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at                  of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Penne D’Agenais (France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of             Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
the Agen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                Registrar, has made an order on 20 January 2000 in which it:
the Chambers of Aloise May, 31 Grand-Rue — appeal against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)                 1. Dismisses the appeal;
of 9 March 1999, Clauni and Others v Commission (Case
T-205/98, not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that             2. Orders Clauni SA, Loma SA and Messrs Bissières and Lompech
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                     to pay the costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot),
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, and                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Clauni SA, Loma SA, Mr Bissières and Mr Lompech are ordered
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
    to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvi-
                                                                          mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                    (Appeal — European Social Fund — Decisions to reduce
                                                                          two amounts of Community assistance — Appeal in part
                                                                           manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/09)
                       of 20 January 2000
in Case C-171/99 P: Clauni and Others v Commission of                                      (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento
(Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part mani-                 de Recursos Humanos, ACE, established at Almada (Portugal),
                        festly unfounded)                                 represented by M. Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar — appeal
                                                                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities of 16 July 1998 in Case T-72/97
                         (2000/C 122/08)                                  Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
                                                                          Humanos, ACE v Commission [1998] ECR II-2847, seeking to
                                                                          have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                    (Language of the case: French)                        being Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          T. Figueira and K. Simonsson), the Court (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
In Case C-171/99 P: Clauni SA, established at Le Passage                  Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;
(France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche              G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
(France), Loma SA, formerly Lomagenais SA, established at                 order on 27 January 2000 in which it:
Penne d’Agenais (France) and André Lompech, residing at
Penne d’Agenais, represented by D. Veyssière, of the Agen Bar,            1. Dismisses the appeal;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of A. May, 31 Grand-rue, v Commission of the European                     2. Orders Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — appeal against the judgment                  Humanos, ACE to pay the costs.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 1999 in Case T-206/98 Clauni
and Others v Commission, not yet published in the European                (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
Court Reports, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot), the Court (Third


title: Case C-361/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Scrl Intercommunale Intermosane, ABSL Fédération de l’Industrie et du Gaz (Synergrid) v Belgian State

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Scrl Intercommunale Intermosane, ABSL Fédération de l’Industrie et du Gaz (Synergrid) v Belgian State
   (Case C-361/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Scrl Intercommunale Intermosane, ABSL Fédération de l’Industrie et du Gaz (Synergrid)

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do national regulations such as Articles 8 to 13 of the Royal Decree of 2 June 2008 concerning the minimum safety requirements for certain old electrical installations at places of work, which lay down requirements relating to the carrying out of electrical installations, the design of electrical equipment and forms of protection attached to that equipment in order to ensure the safety of workers, constitute technical regulations within the meaning Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1) and of rules on Information Society services, the drafts of which must be notified in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the same directive?

               2.

               Are national regulations such as Articles 8 to 13 of the abovementioned Royal Decree of 2 June 2008 measures within the meaning of the final subparagraph of Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC which the Member States consider necessary for ensuring the protection of persons, in particular workers, when using products and which do not affect the products?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/54

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-54/04)
   (2004/C 94/145)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUDWEISER for Class 16 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ — Application No 24612 in respect of goods in Class 16 (paper etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUDWEISER BIER’, ‘BUDWEISER BIER — BUDVAR’, ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-259/13: Action brought on 7 May 2013 — France v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/42

         Action brought on 7 May 2013 — France v Commission
   (Case T-259/13)
   2013/C 207/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul Commission Decision No 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to the extent that it excludes expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the aid Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels (ICHN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) (CANH) of the Plan de Développement Rural Hexagonal 2007-2013 for the financial years 2008 and 2009;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul Decision 2013/123/EU, first, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for sheep which is not declared as aid for sheep and, secondly, to the extent that it excludes from European Union financing the part of the expenditure incurred by the French Republic in the context of the CANH aid for beef which have been inspected on the spot for the animal identification inspection or the inspection of beef premiums;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975, (1) as the Commission held that the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground that it had failed to carry out, with respect to bovine animals and sheep for which a ewe premium had been requested, a count of those animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the Compensatory Allowances for Natural Handicaps (‘CANH aid’). That plea in law is divided into two parts in the context of which the applicant claims:

                           —

                           that the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot controls in respect of the CANH aid is contrary to the continuity of the criterion of load factors and the principle of equal treatment and

                           —

                           that the Commission wrongly interpreted Article 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 by holding that the French control system was inadequate to determine compliance with the loading criterion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1082/2003 (2) and of Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation No 796/2004 (3) concerning controls in the context of the identification of bovine animals and bovine animal premiums, as the Commission held that Articles 10(2) and (4) and 14(2) of Regulation No 1975/2006 impose the obligation to carry out a count of animals during an on-the-spot control in order to determine the criterion of load factors.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, an unlawful extension by the Commission of the application of the flat rate correction to sheep farms which are not eligible for the ewe premium and to beef farming inspected in the context of the identification of bovine animals or beef premiums.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 9).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Case T-227/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/43

         Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Haverkamp v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)
   (Case T-227/16)
   (2016/C 243/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reinhard Haverkamp (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the design ‘Foot mat’ — International registration designating the European Union No DM/072187-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 2618/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the invalidity proceedings before EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-273/05 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2005 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 14 April 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-260/03 between Celltech R&D Ltd and Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/6

         Appeal brought on 5 July 2005 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 14 April 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-260/03 between Celltech R&D Ltd and Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-273/05 P)
   (2005/C 243/08)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 April 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-260/03 (1) between Celltech R&D Ltd and Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2005 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03,

               2.

               dismiss the appeal filed by the Applicant before the Court of First Instance against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002 2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark CELLTECH,

               3.

               order the Applicant before the Court of First Instance to pay the costs in relation to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice.

         In the event that the Court of Justice does not uphold the Appellant's main claim under (2), the Appellant would respectfully request the Court of Justice:

               1.

               to annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03,

               2.

               to remand the case to the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In its action before the Court of Justice the Office requests that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance be set aside. The Office claims that the decision of the Court of First Instance violated Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR and is vitiated by the failure to give proper reasons in support of the Court's findings. The ground of appeal consists of the five following limbs:

               —

               Although the Court of First Instance recognised ‘that at least one meaning of the word mark CELLTECH is “cell technology”’, it incorrectly required the Board of Appeal to give ‘an explanation of the meaning in scientific terms of cell technology’ in order to explain ‘in what way those terms give any information about the intended purpose and nature of the goods and services referred to in the application for registration, in particular about the way in which those goods and services would be applied to cell technology or how they would result from it’;

               —

               The Court of First Instance wrongly disregarded the principle following which a mere combination of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in question, without any unusual variations as to syntax or meaning, remains descriptive of those characteristics for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR;

               —

               The Court's statement that a finding of descriptiveness or of lack of distinctiveness requires a description of the ‘intended purpose’ of the goods and services in question is erroneous as a matter of law. Although the Court recognised that ‘cell technology’ is an ‘area of use’ for the goods and services in question, it wrongly held that the description of such an ‘area of use’ would be insufficient to establish that the sign CELLTECH is descriptive and therefore devoid of distinctiveness;

               —

               The Court incorrectly considered that the description of a process for the production or the supplying of the goods and services in question does not fall within the ambit of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR;

               —

               The Court also failed to give reasons in support of the latter finding.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.05, p. 16


title: Case T-260/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP — Earlier national word mark VISUAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2012 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)
   (Case T-260/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VISUAL MAP - Earlier national word mark VISUAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 65/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Indo Internacional, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain) (represented: initially by X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, and subsequently by M. Curell Aguilà and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Visual SA (Saint-Apollinaire, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 700/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Visual SA and Indo Internacional, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Indo Internacional, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case F-103/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/55

         Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-103/15)
   (2015/C 354/65)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14  207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of reimbursement of costs relating to hospital treatment received by his wife, as a consequence of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal annulling the Commission’s initial decision that the applicant should bear all the hospital costs deemed excessive.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.