title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-212/02: Commission of European Communities v Austria Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC — Inadequate transposition — Obligation that legislation relating to the award of public contracts provide for a procedure whereby all unsuccessful tenderers may have the award decision set aside)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-212/02: Commission of European Communities v Austria Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Inadequate transposition - Obligation that legislation relating to the award of public contracts provide for a procedure whereby all unsuccessful tenderers may have the award decision set aside)
   (2004/C 201/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-212/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Nolin, assisted by R. Roniger) v Republic of Austria (Agents: C. Pesendorfer and M. Fruhmann) — application for a declaration that, inasmuch as the Landesvergabegesetze (regional public procurement laws) of the Länder of Salzburg, Styria, Lower Austria and Carinthia do not in all cases provide for a review procedure whereby an unsuccessful tenderer may have an award decision set aside, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) and of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and admnistrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1991 L 76, p. 14) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that inasmuch as the Landesvergabegesetze (regional public procurement laws) of the Länder of Salzburg, Styria, Lower Austria and Carinthia do not in all cases provide for a review procedure whereby an unsuccessful tenderer may have an award decision set aside, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.


title: Case T-256/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef Kloh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.9.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/41
European Communities on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López                In support of his action the applicant alleges infringements of
Cejudo, residing in Brasilia (Brazil), represented by Georges           Annex X to the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                   of equal treatment and of the principle patere legem quam ipse
                                                                        fecit. As regards the decision concerning his allowance for
                                                                        living conditions, the applicant also alleges unjust enrichment
                                                                        on the part of the Communities and breach of the duty to state
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reasons and breaches of the principles of lawfulness and sound
                                                                        administration.
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 June
      2002 concerning the allocation of housing to the appli-           (1 ) Judgment of 12 November 2002 in Case T-271/01 José Manuel
      cant and annul the decision of the appointing authority                López Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities
      contained in the applicant’s salary slip for July 2002                 [2002] ECR SC II-1109, communicated in OJ No C 19 of
      relating to the application of the allowance for living                25 January 2003, p. 33.
      conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the
      Staff Regulations;
—     annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision of
      28 March 2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged
      on 5 September 2002;
—     order the defendant to pay default interest running from
      July 2000 on the difference between the amount received
      by the applicant as allowance for living conditions and           Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der
      the amount which he ought to have received, having                Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef
      regard to his four dependent children, until payment in           Kloh against the Commission of the European Communi-
      full, the rate of default interest applied having to be                                            ties
      calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European
      Central Bank for principal refinancing operations appli-
      cable during the period in question, increased by two
                                                                                (Case T-256/03)
      points;
—     order the defendant to pay one euro as a token in                                          (2003/C 213/80)
      reparation of non-material damage;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes
                                                                        der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V., Bochum
                                                                        (Germany) and Josef Kloh, Eichenried (Germany), represented
                                                                        by R. Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers.
The applicant, a Commission official posted to the Brasilia
delegation, has four children now living with their mother, the
applicant’s ex-wife. None the less, the applicant contributes to
the children’s actual maintenance, as has already been recog-           The applicants claim that the Court should:
nised by the Court of First Instance in other proceedings
brought by the applicant (1). The present dispute concerns two
decisions of the Commission, one refusing the applicant                 —      annul Articles 1 and 6 of the Commission Decision of
authorisation for housing including five bedrooms in order to                  12 May 2003 (2003/328/EC) in so far as, as derogations
accommodate his four children, on the ground that they live                    regarding category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and
with their mother in Europe ,and the other, communicated to                    the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to
the applicant by means of his salary slip for July 2002 taking                 pigs, they apply until 31 October 2006 at the latest;
into account, for the purpose of defining the allowance for
living conditions (Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regu-
lations), of two children only instead of four.                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in Case T-391/02 ( 1) brought an action for                 The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European                  On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
Parliament and of the Council ( 2) and claimed that the Court              applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the                by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional                In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional               The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of               policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants             policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
02.                                                                        applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
                                                                           the application of those rules.
( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and           Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
     of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules             of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
     concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-         of equal treatment.
     tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
                                                                           of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
                                                                           reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
                                                                           is of the view that employees who are members of a
                                                                           co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
                                                                           dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
                                                                           that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v                        activities of the employee.
                               Europol
                          (Case T-258/03)
                          (2003/C 213/81)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/82)
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                                     (Language of the Case: English)
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.
                                                                           By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
                                                                           Stephen Garrett v Council of the European Union and
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities.
(1) annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
        of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
        30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.
(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
        ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case F-17/08: Action brought on 14 February 2008 — Wybranowski v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/25

         Action brought on 14 February 2008 — Wybranowski v Commission
   (Case F-17/08)
   (2008/C 158/44)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Andrzej Wybranowski (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: Z. Wybranowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for amendment of the decision of 15 November 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/60/06 to award the applicant 20/50 points in the oral test and, consequently, not to include him on the reserve list, and the decision of 20 December 2007 of the same selection board not to increase the number of points obtained, after a review of the oral test, by means of including the applicant on the reserve list. In the alternative, an application for annulment of those decisions and for an order that the defendant and/or competition selection board adopt a new decision including the applicant on the reserve list.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               amend the decision of 15 November 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/60/06 to award the applicant 20/50 points in the oral test and, consequently, not to include him on the reserve list, and the decision of 20 December 2007 of the same selection board not to increase the number of points obtained, after a review of the oral test, by means of including the applicant on the reserve list;

               —

               in the alternative, annul those decisions and order the defendant and/or competition selection board to adopt a new decision including the applicant on the reserve list;

               —

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


title: Case C-544/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Article 18 EC — Income tax legislation — Reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in the Member State of taxation — Refusal of reduction by the amount of contributions paid in other Member States)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   (Case C-544/07) (1)

   (Article 18 EC - Income tax legislation - Reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in the Member State of taxation - Refusal of reduction by the amount of contributions paid in other Member States)
   2009/C 141/24
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzi Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and of Article 39(1) and (2) EC — National legislation on income tax limiting the right to deduct health insurance contributions from that tax to contributions paid solely in the Member State concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18(1) EC precludes legislation of a Member State which makes the granting of a right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid conditional on payment of those contributions in that Member State on the basis of national law and results in the refusal to grant such a tax advantage where the contributions liable to be deducted from the amount of income tax due in that Member State have been paid under the compulsory health insurance scheme of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-259/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, by order of that court dated 26 May 2004, in the case of Elizabeth Emanuel and Continental Shelf 128 Ltd

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, by order of that court dated 26 May 2004, in the case of Elizabeth Emanuel and Continental Shelf 128 Ltd
   (Case C-259/04)
   (2004/C 217/26)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice, The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 26 May 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Elizabeth Emanuel and Continental Shelf 128 Limited on the following questions:
   ARTICLE 3.1 (g) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/104 (1)

               1.

               Is a trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public and prohibited from registration under Article 3.1 (g) in the following circumstances:

                           (a)

                           the goodwill associated with the trade mark has been assigned together with the business of making the goods to which the mark relates;

                           (b)

                           prior to the assignment the trade mark indicated to a significant proportion of the relevant public that a particular person was involved in the design or creation of the goods in relation to which it was used;

                           (c)

                           after the assignment an application was made by the assignee to register the trade mark; and

                           (d)

                           at the time of the application a significant portion of the relevant public wrongly believed that use of the trade mark indicated that the particular person was still involved in the design or creation of the goods in relation to which the mark was used, and this belief was likely to affect the purchasing behaviour of that part of the public?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is not unreservedly yes, what other matters must be taken into consideration in assessing whether a trade mark is of such a nature as to deceive the public and prohibited from registration under Article 3.1 (g) and, in particular, is it relevant that the risk of deception is likely to diminish over time?

         ARTICLE 12.2 (b) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/104

               3.

               Is a registered trade mark liable to mislead the public in consequence of the use made of it by the proprietor or with his consent and so liable to revocation under Article 12.2 (b) in the following circumstances:

                           (a)

                           the registered trade mark and the goodwill associated with it have been assigned together with the business of making the goods to which the mark relates;

                           (b)

                           prior to the assignment the trade mark indicated to a significant proportion of the relevant public that a particular person was involved in the design or creation of the goods in relation to which it was used;

                           (c)

                           after the assignment an application was made to revoke the registered trade mark; and

                           (d)

                           at the time of the application a significant portion of the relevant public wrongly believed that use of the trade mark indicated that the particular person was still involved with the design or creation of the goods in relation to which the mark was used, and this belief was likely to affect the purchasing behaviour of that part of the public?

               4.

               If the answer to question 3 is not unreservedly yes, what other matters must be taken into consideration in assessing whether a registered trade mark is liable to mislead the public in consequence of the use made of it by the proprietor or with his consent and so liable to revocation under Article 12.2 (b) and, in particular, is it relevant that the risk of deception is likely to diminish over time?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1-7.


title: Case C-601/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-467/13: Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd v European Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/29

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-467/13: Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-601/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Arrow Group ApS, Arrow Generics Ltd (represented by: C. Firth, S. Kon, C. Humpe, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 in Case T-467/13 and/or annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in Case AT.39226-Lundbeck insofar as they pertain to Arrow; or

               —

               in the further alternative, set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 in Case T-467/13 and refer the case back to the General Court; or

               —

               in the final alternative, set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 in Case T-467/13 insofar as the Judgment upheld the fine imposed on Arrow pursuant to Article 2 of Commission decision C(2013) 3803 final in respect of the UK and Danish Agreements or reduce the amount of such fine; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay Arrow's costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First Ground: The General Court misapplied the relevant test for potential competition:

               1.

               First plea: the General Court shifted the burden of proof to Arrow and relieved the Commission of its obligation to establish the existence of potential competition.

               2.

               Second plea: the General Court erred by deriving the existence of potential competition from a series of hypotheses contrary to the principle that potential competition necessitates the existence of a real and concrete possibility of entry.

               3.

               Third plea: the General Court attached undue weight to Lundbeck's intention and wrongly assessed the evidential importance of facts occurring after the Agreements were signed.

               4.

               Fourth plea: The General Court failed to consider the relevance and impact of the Paroxetine Judgment of the English Court.

               5.

               Fifth plea: The General Court wrongly derived the existence of potential competition from the fact that Arrow had taken steps to prepare for market entry.

               6.

               Sixth plea: the General Court erred by applying a presumption of provisional invalidity and non-infringement to Lundbeck's patents.

         Second Ground: The General Court has erred in finding that the patent settlement agreements had the object of restricting competition:

               1.

               First plea: the General Court has disregarded the fact that an agreement which is ‘simply capable’ of restricting competition is not an object infringement.

               2.

               Second plea: the General Court has misdirected itself in categorising the Agreements as being in essence market exclusion agreements.

               3.

               Third plea: the General Court has wrongly concluded that the Commission could establish the anticompetitive object of the Agreements without having to consider the situation that would have prevailed in the absence of the agreements.

         Third Ground: The General Court erred in accepting the Commission's conclusions that Arrow acted intentionally or negligently in committing the alleged infringement and no fine should have been imposed.


title: Case C-335/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 on measures in respect of trade in agricultural products — Action for annulment — Period within which action must be brought — Point from which period starts to run — Lateness — Inadmissibility — Amendment of a provision of that regulation — Recommencement of period within which action must be brought — Partial admissibility — Grounds of appeal — Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection — Infringement of the principles of free movement of goods and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations — Infringement of the hierarchy of norms — Infringement of Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession — Erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 — Infringement of duty to state reasons)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-335/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 on measures in respect of trade in agricultural products - Action for annulment - Period within which action must be brought - Point from which period starts to run - Lateness - Inadmissibility - Amendment of a provision of that regulation - Recommencement of period within which action must be brought - Partial admissibility - Grounds of appeal - Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection - Infringement of the principles of free movement of goods and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Infringement of the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations - Infringement of the hierarchy of norms - Infringement of Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession - Erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 - Infringement of duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 258/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, A. Szmytkowska, and T. van Rijn, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered on 10 June 2009 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-257/04 Poland v Commission, by which it dismissed the action seeking partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 230/2004 of 10 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 39, p. 13) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 of 20 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 114, p. 13) — Misinterpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, and of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952 to 1958, p. 59) — Breach of Article 253 EC and of Article 41 of the Act of Accession, infringement of the right to effective redress, and infringement of the principles of solidarity, proportionality, non-discrimination, good faith and legitimate expectations — Procedural irregularities resulting from the refusal of the Court of First Instance to examine the pleas in law alleging infringement of the principles of solidarity and good faith

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court rules:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/1

         (2007/C 170/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

      OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-569/13: Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffé KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/57

         Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffé KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
   (Case T-569/13) (1)

   (2015/C 381/68)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-167/07: Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Far Eastern Textile v Council

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/27

         Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Far Eastern Textile v Council
   (Case T-167/07)
   (2007/C 170/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Far Eastern Textile Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in Taiwan, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Taiwanese producer and exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant, first of all, submits that the Council violated Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation (2) by applying the asymmetrical method to calculate the applicant's dumping margin.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to provide adequate reasons why the symmetrical comparison methods did not reflect the full degree of dumping.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council violated Article 2(10), (11) and (12) of the Basic Regulation by calculating the applicant's dumping margin using zeroing techniques zeroing any negative dumping margins when calculating the weighted average dumping margin pursuant to Article 2(12).
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to state adequate reasons why the applicant's dumping margin must be calculated using zeroing techniques.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-370/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/69)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-370/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-384/14: Action brought on 3 June 2014  — Italy v Commission

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/32

         Action brought on 3 June 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-384/14)
   2014/C 235/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: B. Tidore, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2014) 2008 of 4 April 2014, notified on 7 April 2014, which excludes from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, and by Italy in particular, under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to observe Community principles and insufficient investigation.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that, in the contested decision, the Commission made a financial correction in response to some shortcomings observed during an on-site inspection which took place only in the Lazio and Abruzzo regions. The applicant contests the idea that the results of that inspection can be extrapolated beyond those regions and that the correction can be quantified at 5 %, since in reality the various regions of Italy are extremely diverse and in any event only one paying agency (the Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura) (the Agricultural Payments Agency) (AGEA) was involved.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1).

                           —

                           In its decision, the Commission asserted that the Italian State had misapplied the legislation on special rights, stating that a risk to the Fund had come about. The applicant submits that Articles 43 and 48 of Regulation No 1782/2003 do not specify a particular method for the redistribution of special rights as regards the cases investigated by the Commission, and that the methodology adopted in Italy not only fully complies with that legislation, but, what is more, does not in itself represent a particular risk to the Fund.

               3.

               Third plea in law: failure to observe the general principles of financial correction and compliance with the recognition criteria, and failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons.

                           —

                           In its decision, the Commission made a correction in relation to the operational shortcomings attributable to the Agenzia della Regione Basilicata per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (Basilicata Region Agricultural Payments Agency) (ARBEA), the paying agency whose recognition was withdrawn through the administration’s decision of 12 May 2010 with effect from 16 October 2010, the date when ARBEA’s competences were taken over by AGEA. The applicant criticises the Commission’s way of proceeding — that is, its extending to 2010 the correction previously applied to the financial years 2007-2009 on the assumption that the risks previously established were still present and adopting the same percentage — and also criticises its application of that correction to the period between the date on which recognition was withdrawn and the date on which AGEA took over ARBEA’s duties.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.


title: Case T-142/04: Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/8

         Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-142/04)
   (2004/C 168/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V., having its registered office in The Hague (Netherlands), represented by H.J. Bronkhorst and J.F. van Nouhuys.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               I.

               annul the decision of 5 January 2004 addressed to it by the Commission of the European Communities;

               II.

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant takes issue with the Commission's decision that remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case. That decision was adopted following annulment by the Court of Justice of Commission Decision C/2000/485 final in Case C-156/00 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission. (1)

   The applicant imported maize into the EC under the inward processing arrangements. The maize was to be processed into glucose, which in turn was re-exported. For that purpose the applicant had the necessary authorisations for the system of equivalent compensation. The Commission states in the contested decision that the exported glucose was not obtained entirely from maize but also from wheat originating on the EC market. The Netherlands authorities thereupon recovered the import duties owing. In the contested decision the Commission turned down the request for remission of that debt.
   In support of its application the applicant first submits that there has been a breach of the rights of the defence. More specifically, it pleads infringement of the audi alteram partem rule and of the right of access to the case-file.
   The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of Regulation No 1430/79 (2) on the repayment or remission of import or export duties, as well as a breach of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 (3) establishing the Community Customs Code, and of Articles 905 to 909 inclusive of Regulation No 2454/93 (4) laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92. The applicant also alleges breach of the obligation under Article 253 EC to state reasons.
   The Commission, the applicant argues, erred in finding that the applicant was manifestly negligent in regard to meeting the conditions governing its authorisation for inward processing. According to the applicant, the glucose to be exported, produced from wheat and maize, had the same characteristics as glucose obtained solely from maize. The applicant submits further that both products come under one single CN code. It claims that the only reproach which may be made against it is that it exported the glucose in part after expiry of the six-month period set out in the authorisation.
   The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Judgment in Case C-156/00 Netherlands v Commission [2003] ECR I-2527.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case F-81/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Duyster v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/68

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Duyster v Commission
   (Case F-81/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/136)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 34.


title: Case C-62/16: Action brought on 3 February 2016 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/20

         Action brought on 3 February 2016 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-62/16)
   (2016/C 145/26)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, M. Heller and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Directive 2012/33/EU (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 38 042,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2012/33/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 18 June 2014.

      (1)  Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (OJ 2012 L 327, p. 1).


title: Case C-373/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2017 by Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH, and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-480/15, Agria Polska and Others v Commission

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/4

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2017 by Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH, and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-480/15, Agria Polska and Others v Commission
   (Case C-373/17 P)
   (2017/C 347/04)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellants: Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH, and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: P. Graczyk and W. Rocławski)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-480/15;

               —

               give a final ruling in the dispute, that is to say, annul the Commission’s decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges that the General Court infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 17(1) TEU, Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, through its disregarding of obvious errors made by the Commission in its assessment of the likelihood of infringement of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU, whether there was any EU interest in opening an investigation, and the scope of the necessary measures of inquiry.
   In this first ground of appeal the appellants give details of the alleged infringements by the General Court, which consisted, inter alia, in: (i) the finding that the simultaneous nature of the appellants’ competitors’ activities (the bringing of complaints before the national bodies) was justified, solely and exclusively on the basis of the explanations put forward by those competitors; (ii) the failure to take account of the fact that the majority of the administrative decisions issued as a result of the competitors’ complaints and consequently imposing penalties on the appellants had been overruled; (iii) the failure to take account of the fact that complaints were also addressed to non-competent bodies and the Court’s confining itself to stating that, having regard to the risks of damage to the competitors’ reputation or of adverse effects on the original condition of the products traded, their informing the competent bodies could be legitimate; (iv) the confirmation of the Commission’s finding that there was insufficient EU interest in opening an investigation, notwithstanding the fact that the activities covered by the request concerned the territory of several Member States and undertakings operating on a number of markets; the incorrect finding that the bringing by the appellants of complaints before the national competition authority meant that that authority had exclusive competence; (v) the failure to take account of the fact that the scope of the necessary measures of inquiry and the need to employ substantial resources indicates that the Commission has competence; (vi) the finding that the conditions for so-called ‘vexatious proceedings’ were not met in the present case.
   The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle that full effect must be given to EU law (effet utile) and misinterpretation of that principle in relation to the practical application of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 105 TFEU and Article 17(1) TEU, through: (i) the failure to take account of the role played by the Commission within the EU competition protection system and the acceptance that the Commission is not obliged to establish whether national bodies have the appropriate means by which to fulfil their tasks under Regulation No 1/2003; (ii) the failure to take account of the appellants’ arguments concerning the ineffectiveness of seeking redress before the Polish courts through private enforcement of the rules on competition, given the lack of suitable procedures and the fact that the statutory limitation periods under Polish law had expired; and (iii) the finding by the General Court that the appellants had failed to show that the Polish competition authority (the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) had no intention effectively to prosecute and penalise infringements, even though it was not disputed that the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection had refused to open an investigation on the ground that the then legally binding one-year statutory limitation period had expired.
   The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection (Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), of the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal (first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and of the right to good administration (Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) through: (i) confirmation of the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellants’ request, without stating whether an infringement had occurred, despite the national competition authority’s earlier refusal to prosecute the infringements in view of the formal requirements and the lack of a genuine possibility of redress in the form of damages through private enforcement; (ii) the incorrect finding that an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection had not occurred, on the ground that the appellants could have lodged a complaint against the Commission’s decision rejecting the request; and (iii) the failure to take account of the fact that the right to effective judicial protection, to an effective remedy and to good administration also includes the right to have a case decided within a reasonable time, something which was not observed in the present case, because the Commission did not issue the decision refusing to open an investigation until four and a half years after the date on which the request had been submitted by the appellants.


title: Case C-22/06: Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-22/06) (1)

   (2006/C 249/21)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.


title: Case C-69/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.
   (Case C-69/08)
   (2008/C 107/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

      Defendant: I.N.P.S.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 (1) of 20 October 1980 — where they provide for the payment of workers' outstanding claims relating to pay — allow such claims, when they come to be enforced against the guarantee institution, to be deprived of their initial nature as claims relating to pay and to be reclassified as social security claims merely because the payment of them has been entrusted by the Member State to a social security institution, and therefore allow the term ‘pay’ to be replaced in national law by the term ‘social security benefit’?

               2.

               As regards the social purpose of the directive, is it sufficient for the national legislation to use the employee's initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison against which to determine per relationem the benefit to be guaranteed through the intervention of the guarantee institution or is it a requirement that the worker's claim relating to pay against the insolvent employer be protected, through the intervention of the guarantee institution, by ensuring that its scope, guarantees and time-limits and the procedures for its exercise are the same as those available for any other employment claim under the same legal order?

               3.

               Do the principles inferable from Community legislation, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, allow the application to employees' outstanding claims relating to pay, for the period determined in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 80/987, of limitation rules that are less favourable than those applied to claims of a similar nature?

      (1)  OJ L 283, p. 23.


title: Joined Cases C-39/13 to C-41/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13) (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Single tax entity formed by companies in the same group — Request — Grounds for refusal — Seat of one or more intermediate companies, or of the parent company, located in another Member State — No permanent establishment in the State of taxation)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)
   (Joined Cases C-39/13 to C-41/13) (1)

   ((Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Single tax entity formed by companies in the same group - Request - Grounds for refusal - Seat of one or more intermediate companies, or of the parent company, located in another Member State - No permanent establishment in the State of taxation))
   2014/C 282/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen (C-39/13), X AG, X1 Holding GmbH, X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding GmbH, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV (C-40/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam (C-41/13)

      Respondents: SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               In Cases C-39/13 and C-41/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a resident parent company can form a single tax entity with a resident sub-subsidiary where it holds that sub-subsidiary through one or more resident companies, but cannot where it holds that sub-subsidiary through non-resident companies which do not have a permanent establishment in that Member State.

               2)

               In Case C-40/13, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which treatment as a single tax entity is granted to a resident parent company which holds resident subsidiaries, but is precluded for resident sister companies the common parent company of which neither has its seat in that Member State nor has a permanent establishment there.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 1996 in Case C-164/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin): Georgios Aranitis v. Land Berlin (General system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas - Conditions: indirectly imposed by national rules - Regulated profession)

text:
  30 . 3 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     is awarded and, consequently, only persons possessing that
                         ( Sixth Chamber )                                higher-education diploma as a rule seek employment in, and
                                                                         pursue, that profession.
                       of 1 February 1996
 in Case C-164/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
 the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ): Georgios Aranitis v.
                           Land Berlin ()
 (General system for the recognition of higher-education
 diplomas — Conditions: indirectly imposed by national
                 rules — Regulated profession)                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            ( 96/C 95/01 )                                                       (Fourth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: German)                                                  of 8 February 1996
                                                                         in Case C-8/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         the Nederlandse Raad van State ): C. B. Laperre v.
                                                                               Bestuurscommissie Beroepszaken in de Provincie
In Case C-164/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                        Zuid-Holland ( 1 )
of the EC Treaty by the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin for a               (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                security — Article 4 (1) ofDirective 79/7/EEC — Statutory
court between Georgios Aranitis and Land Berlin on the                   scheme of social assistance for older and/or partially
interpretation of Articles 1 ( c ) and ( d ) and 7 ( 1 ) of Council      incapacitated workers who are long-term unemployed —
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                         Conditions relating to previous employment and age)
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                                              ( 96/C 95/02 )
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years ' duration ( OJ No L 19 ,                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
 1989 , p. 16 ), the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed
of: D. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,                                published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate-General ; D. Loutermann-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment in                In Case C-8/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
which it ruled that:                                                     the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State ( State
                                                                         Council of the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Article 1 (c) in conjunction with Article 1 (d) of Council               proceedings pending before that court between C. B.
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                     Laperre and Bestuurscommissie Beroepszaken in de
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                  Provincie Zuid-Holland — on the interpretation of
awarded on completion of professional education and                      Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
training of at least three years ' duration must be interpreted          1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
as meaning that a profession cannot be described as                      equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
regulated when there are in the host Member State no laws,               security ( OJ No L 6 , 1979 , p. 24 ) — the Court ( Fourth
regulations or administrative provisions governing the                   Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
taking up or pursuit of that profession or ofone of its modes            President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray,
of pursuit, even though the only education and training                  Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
leading to it consists of at least four and a half years of              has given a judgment on 8 February 1996 , in which it
higher-education studies on completion of which a diploma                rules :


title: Case T-641/11 P: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade and step — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission — No need to adjudicate in part — Appeal in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/24

         Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Mische v Commission
   (Case T-641/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade and step - Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials - Recruitment by the Parliament and simultaneous transfer to the Commission - No need to adjudicate in part - Appeal in part clearly unfounded)
   2013/C 38/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent); and Council of the European Union (represented by: A.F. Jensen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal to the extent that it is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that judgment dismisses the claims for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 November 2004 because that decision determines Mr Harald Mische’s grade to be A*6;

               2.

               The appeal is dismissed as to the remainder;

               3.

               Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

               4.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-275/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  29 January 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid — Spain) — Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU (Information society — Obligations of providers of services — Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data — Obligation of disclosure — Limits — Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications — Compatibility with the protection of copyright and related rights — Right to effective protection of intellectual property)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid — Spain) — Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU
   (Case C-275/06) (1)

   (Information society - Obligations of providers of services - Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data - Obligation of disclosure - Limits - Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications - Compatibility with the protection of copyright and related rights - Right to effective protection of intellectual property)
   (2008/C 64/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Productores de Música de España (Promusicae)

      Defendant: Telefónica de España SAU
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 5, Madrid, Spain — Interpretation of Articles 15(2) and 18 of Directive 2001/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1), Article 8 (1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) and Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Treatment of data generated by communications made in the context of the supply of an information society service — Duty of operators of electronic communications networks and services, providers of telecommunications network access and providers of data storage services to retain and make available such data — Not where civil proceedings are concerned.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings. However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Piraeus (8th Chamber), by a decision of 30 June 1997, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greek State (Case C-311/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /11
7. Does it follow from Article 222 of the EC Treaty, or                    the European Communities in Case T-63/96 between
     from the application by analogy of Article 174                        Augusto Fichtner and the Commission of the European
     thereof, that any right to pay in accordance with                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     another collective agreement ( between the same                       the European Communities on 8 September 1997 by
     parties ) which may be inferred from Article 119 of the               Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,
     EC Treaty or from Directive 75/117/EEC exists only                    Avvocato in Pavia (Italy ).
     from the date of a finding to that effect by the Court
     of Justice ? •
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should           set aside the
                                                                           order of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth        Chamber) of
(') OJ L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                           9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96 H, notified to          the applicant
                                                                           on 11 July 1997, dismissing his application,        and refer the
                                                                           case back to the Court of First Instance .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), by a decision of 30 June
                                                                           Proceedings before the Court of First Instance were
1997, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v.
                                Greek State                                brought in good time and in accordance with the proper
                                                                           procedure, by means of an application lodged on 10 May
                            Case C-3 11/97 )                               1996, against the decision adopted on 5 February 1996,
                                                                           which was notified to the applicant through official
                             ( 97/C 331/18 )
                                                                           channels on 20 February 1996 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     That is indisputably the measure concluding the
European Communities by a decision of 30 June 1997 of                      complaints      procedure.           The   character     of the
the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First                    communication from the Director-General of the Rights
Instance ) Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), which was received at the               and Obligations Directorate of DG IX is quite clear and it
Court Registry on 8 September 1997, for a preliminary                      cannot be regarded merely as an express reply, still less as
ruling in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greek                  a confirmatory act.
State on the following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, the applicant asks the Court, in the
Is Article 109 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Greek Income Tax Code                    event that his pleas in law are rejected, to acknowledge
contained in Law 2238/1994 ( FEK ( Greek Official                          that his error was excusable. As was pointed out in the
Gazette) 151 A), which imposes a different tax charge                      grounds of the order under appeal, the Court of First
unfavourable to foreign companies by applying a 40 % tax                   Instance has consistently held that failure to comply with
rate on their taxable income, as against domestic                          the time-limits set by Article 91 ( 3 ) of the Staff
companies to which a tax rate of 35% is applied,                           Regulations does not prevent an application from being
permissible under Community law and, in particular, is it                  admissible where the applicant has committed a justifiable
in compliance with Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty; in                     error.
other words, is the Greek State entitled to impose the said
differential tax treatment which is unfavourable to foreign
companies ?                                                                 H OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996, p . 9 . ■
Appeal brought on 8 September 1997 by Augusto                               Action brought on 10 September 1997 by the Commission
Fichtner, an official of the Commission of the European                     of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
 Communities, residing at Besozzo, Varese (Italy), against                                          ( Case C-3 13/97)
the order made on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                              ( 97/C 331 /20)
 in Case T-63/96 between Augusto Fichtner and the
           Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case C-3 12/97 P)                               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                              ( 97/C 331 / 19 )                             10 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
                                                                            Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 An appeal against the order made on 9 July 1997 by the                     Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Fourth     Chamber of the             Court of First Instance     of       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-175/94: International Procurement Services SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation - Public contract - European Development Fund - Non-contractual liability - Determination of the origin of goods)

text:
 No C 247/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              compensation of BFR 14 797 706 for damage allegedly
                        of 11 July 1996                               suffered by the applicant following reduction of the
                                                                      financial assistance granted to the other party to a contract
 in Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang v. Council of the          concluded by it in relation to a project financed by the
                 European Communities ( 1 )                           European Development Fund — the Court of First Instance
 (Anti-dumping — Action for annulment — Admissibility —               ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen , President, and
           Conduct of the investigation — Injury)                     R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,
                           ( 96/C 247/28 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang, established at
Harbin ( China ), represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, of        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach ,
 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Council of the European
Communities ( Agents : Erik H. Stein , Ramon Torrent and
Hans-Jürgen Rabe ), supported by the Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : Eric L. White and
Claus-Michael Happe ) — application for annulment of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3434/91 of 25 November
 1 991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                                  of 11 July 1996
oxalic acid originating in India or the People 's Republic of         in Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda v. Commission of
China ( OJ No L 326 , 1991 , p. 6 ) — the Court of First                             the European Communities (')
Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                     (Applications for annulment — European Social Fund —
composed of A. Saggio, President, and C. W. Bellamy, A.               Reduction of financial assistance initially granted —
Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;              Absence of an act which may be challenged —
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                                 Inadmissibility)
judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                96/C 247/30 )
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda , having its registered
(') OJ No C 103 , 23 . 4 . 1992 .                                    office in Lisbon , represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
                                                                     of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, against
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
                                                                     Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of a
                                                                     decision allegedly taken by the defendant and notified by a
                                                                     letter from the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo
                                                                     Social Europeu ( Department of European Social Fund
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Affairs ) of 25 May 1 994 and by a letter from the defendant
                        of 11 July 1996                              of 16 June 1994 rejecting a claim for final payment of
in Case T-l 75 /94 : International Procurement Services SA v.
                                                                     financial assistance granted to the applicant by the
                                                                     European Social Fund for two training programmes,
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                  reducing such assistance and seeking repayment of the
(Action for compensation — Public contract — European                advances previously paid by the European Social Fund and
Development Fund — Non-contractual liability —                       the Portuguese State — the Court of First Instance of the
           Determination of the origin of goods)                     European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                          ( 96/C 247/29 )                            Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                     Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                     gave a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
In Case T-l 75/94 : International Procurement Services SA ,
whose registered office is in Brussels , represented by Peter        2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.
De Troyer, of the Audenarde Bar, and Lydia Lorang, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       ( ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Etienne Lasnet and Hervé Lehman ) — application for


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2002 in Case T-17/01: Georgios Rounis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfer of a part of remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than the country in which the institution has its seat — Articles 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined application)

text:
C 180/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           27.7.2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 May 2002
                           of 14 May 2002
                                                                            in Case T-17/01: Georgios Rounis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-194/00: Nuno Antas de Campos v European
                             Parliament (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Transfer of a part of remuneration in the
                                                                            currency of a Member State other than the country in which
                                                                            the institution has its seat — Articles 17(2)(a) and (b) of
(Official — Rejection for definitive termination of service                 Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined application)
             — Action for annulment and damages)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/37)
                           (2002/C 180/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            In Case T-17/01, Georgios Rounis, an official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart)
In Case T-194/00: Nuno Antas de Campos, an official of                      — first, application for annulment of the Commission’s
the European Parliament, residing in Lisbon, represented by                 decision of 24 February 2000 limiting transfer of the appli-
C. Botelho Moniz, lawyer, against the European Parliament                   cant’s emoluments to the United Kingdom to 19 % of his net
(Agents: R. Da Silva Passos and J.F. De Wachter) — Application              monthly earnings and of Conclusion No 102/84 of the College
for annulment of the decision of 3 September 1999, rejecting                of Heads of Administration relating to the transfer of the
the applicant’s request for termination of service under Council            emoluments of officials and resident agents and, second,
Regulation (EC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 2688/95 introducing                       application for damages and interest for the material damage
special measures to terminate the service of officials of the               allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
European Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,               Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 280, p. 1), and for compen-                   P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator for the Registrar,
sation for damage — the Court of First Instance (Second                     has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 2002,              1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 February 2000
in which it:                                                                      limiting the transfer of the applicant’s emoluments to the
                                                                                United Kingdom to 19 % of his monthly earnings;
1.     Dismisses the claims for annulment as unfounded;                     2.    Orders the Commission to make good the damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as the result of the decision of 24 February 2000,
                                                                                with interest for late payment at the annual rate of 5,25 %
2.     Dismisses the claims for compensation for damage caused by                 annually until payment;
       the contested decision as unfounded;
                                                                            3.    Orders the parties to submit to the Court of First Instance,
                                                                                within five months of the date of delivery of the present
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the claim for compensation as                   judgment, the amounts to be paid, drawn up by common
       inadmissible;                                                              accord;
                                                                            4.    Failing agreement, orders the parties to submit details on the
4.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                amounts proposed within that same time-limit;
                                                                            5.    Reserves the decision on costs.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, p. 17.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Action brought on 24 October 1997 by Wilson Holland BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-280/97)

text:
C 387/24                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20 . 12 . 97
       investment which had been made in full long before.                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       The applicant considered that it did not conclude a
       separate sale of the installations and equipment but
       transferred its entire business, comprising the fish                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
       hatchery, clearly maintaining the undertaking as a                    submitted in Cases T- 186/97, T- 187/97, T-l 90/97, T-191/
       going concern.                                                        97, T-l 92/97, T-210/97, T-211 /97, T-216/97, T-217/97
                                                                             and T-2 18/97 ( 1 ).
— breach of the principle of legal certainty and of
       Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 . The                     (') OJ C 318 , 18 . 10 . 1997, p . 17—25 .
       applicant observes in that connection that, in the light
       of the exhaustive manner in which that regulation lays
       down the conditions for initiation of the procedure for
       suspension/cancellation/reduction of the contributions,
       it can hardly be said that the term 'significant
       alteration of the project' covers a mere change in the
       ownership of the business.                                            Action brought on 24 October 1997 by Wilson Holland
                                                                             BV against the Commission of the European Communities
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988                                           ( Case T-280/97)
      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC )
      No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of                                             ( 97/C 387/45 )
      different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
      operations of the European Investment Bank and other
      existing financial instruments ( OJ L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p. 1 ).                     (Language of the case: English)
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986
      on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
      the fisheries and aquaculture sector ( OJ L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1986 ,     An action against the Commission of the European
      p. 7 ).                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 24 October
                                                                             1997 by Wilson Holland BV, represented by Catherine
                                                                             Grisart, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue
                                                                             Aldringen, Luxembourg.
Action brought on 24 October 1997 by DFDS Transport
 BV against the Commission of the European Communities                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( Case T-279/97
                              ( 97/C 387/44 )                                — annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                                June 5 , 1997 No C(97 ) 1636 def./2, under reference
                    (Language of the case: English)                                 REM 26/96 ( not published in the Official Journal of
                                                                                the European Communities ), based on Article 173 of
                                                                                the Rome Treaty,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 October                           — acknowledge that the applicant reserves all its rights to
 1997 by by DFDS Transport BV, represented by Catherine                             bring at a later stage an action for damages against the
 Grisart, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                       defendant,
 Luxembourg at the office of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue
Aldringen, Luxembourg.
                                                                             — order         the   defendant      to  bear all costs   of    the
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                       proceedings, including all costs fees and expenses of
                                                                                the applicant.
— annul the decision of the European Commission of
        5 June 1997, No C(97 ) 1636 def./l , under reference                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        REM 26/96 ( not published in the Official Journal of
        the European Communities ), based on Article 173 of
        the Rome Treaty,                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              submitted in Cases T-l 86/97, T-l 87/97, T-l 90/97, T-191 /
                                                                              97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211 /97, T-216/97, T-217/97
 — acknowledge that the applicant reserves all its rights to                  and T-2 18/97 (') and T-279/97 ( 2 ).
        bring at a later stage an action for damages against the
        defendant,
                                                                              (') OJ C 318 , 18 . 10 . 1997, p. 17—25 .
                                                                              ( : ) See page 24 of this Official Journal .
 — order         the   defendant     to   bear    all    costs     of    the
        proceedings, including all costs fees and expenses of
        the applicant .