title: Case C-325/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Doux Geflügel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Doux Geflügel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-325/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Doux Geflügel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Question referred

   Do chickens under subheading 0207 12 10 (1) of the Combined Nomenclature have to be plucked without any residue or may some small quill feathers, plumage feathers, quill ends and hairs still be attached after going through a mechanical plucking process?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-422/11 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej against the order made by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/21

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej against the order made by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
   (Case C-422/11 P)
   2011/C 311/37
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (represented by: D. Dziedzic-Chojnacka, D. Pawłowska)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set the order aside and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for further examination;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The reason for dismissal of the action was the employment relationship between the lawyers representing the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (President of the Office for Electronic Communications) and the Office for Electronic Communications, which, according to the General Court, precludes those lawyers from representing the applicant before it.
   The Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej puts forward the following pleas in law in challenging the contested order.
   First, the General Court infringed the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute, and also in conjunction with the sixth paragraph of Article 254 TFEU and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (‘the Rules of Procedure’), because it misinterpreted the first-named provision and held that it does not cover lawyers employed under an employment contract concluded with a party to proceedings before the General Court.
   Second, the General Court infringed Article 67(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, because it failed to respect the different legal system and legal tradition of a Member State and it dismissed the action on the basis of finding that lawyers in an employment relationship have a lesser degree of independence than lawyers pursuing their activities in chambers independent of the client.
   Third, the General Court infringed Article 5(1) and (2) TEU, in conjunction with Article 4(1) TEU and in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, by holding that the provisions of the Treaty permit differentiation as to the scope of the rights of lawyers in relation to representation before the General Court although the law of the Member State does not provide for such differentiation and competence in this area has not been accorded to the European Union by the Treaties.
   Fourth, the General Court infringed Article 5(4) TEU, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, by accepting that it is necessary, in order to achieve objectives of the Treaties, not to grant lawyers in an employment relationship the right to represent a party in proceedings before the General Court.
   Fifth, the General Court committed a procedural infringement because the reasons stated in the contested order are inadequate.


title: Case F-72/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 September 2015 — Anagnostu and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures — Reference multiplication rates — Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations — Transitional measures for the period between 1 May 2004 and 30 April 2011 — Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Setting of promotion thresholds — Not included in the list of promoted officials — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 September 2015 — Anagnostu and Others v Commission
   (Case F-72/11) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures - Reference multiplication rates - Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations - Transitional measures for the period between 1 May 2004 and 30 April 2011 - Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Setting of promotion thresholds - Not included in the list of promoted officials - Interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2015/C 363/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Anastasios Anagnostu (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) and 24 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, for annulment of the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 procedures as regards grades AD 13 and AD 14 and, secondly, for annulment of the list of officials promoted to grades AD 13 and AD 14 for the 2010 exercise and annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD 12 or AD 13.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 26 November 2010 not to promote Mr Antoulas, Ms Bruni, Ms Nicolaidou-Kallergis and Mr Xanthopoulos;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear four twenty-fifths of its own costs and to pay four twenty-fifths of the costs incurred by the applicants;

               4.

               Orders the applicants other than Mr Antoulas, Ms Bruni, Ms Nicolaidou-Kallergis and Mr Xanthopoulos to bear twenty-one twenty-fifths of their own costs and to pay twenty-one twenty-fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011, p. 20.


title: Case T-209/06: Action brought on 10 August 2006 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/11

         Action brought on 10 August 2006 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-209/06)
   (2006/C 249/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals, Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren, Willem Plomp, trading as Plomps Vogelhandel and Marinus Borgstein (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are (i) associations which promote the interests of importers and exporters of birds and animals and (ii) importers and exporters of, inter alia, birds. They contest Commission Decision 2006/522/EC (1).
   The applicants contend that the contested decision is unnecessary, as the existing quarantine rules offer adequate protection.
   They also submit that the decision is in conflict with the precautionary principle because the Commission has not based it on the most complete possible scientific evaluation.
   A complete ban on imports is also disproportionate in light of the factual background to the decision, namely the infection of birds from Taiwan with avian influenza.
   The applicants also argue that the Commission has misused its powers and that the real reason for the extension of the protective measures is the Commission's wish to await the outcome of the report from the Animal Health and Welfare panel of the European Food Safety Authority.
   The measures are also discriminatory inasmuch as poultry is excluded from their scope.

      (1)  2006/522/EC: Commission Decision of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (notified under document number C(2006) 3303) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28).


title: Case T-350/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/23

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-350/07 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 37/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arysta Lifescience SAS (Noguères, France), Belchim Crop Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret, SA (Sant Cugat de Valles, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko spol. s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), F&N Agro Ceská republika spol. s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), F&N Agro Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) and FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/416/EC of 13 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of carbofuran in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 156, p. 30) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-550/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/27

         Action brought on 19 October 2011 — Assaad v Council
   (Case T-550/11)
   2011/C 370/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Martin, Solicitor, M. Lester and A. Sutton, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) and Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as the name of the applicant has been added to the Annex to the Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 (1) and to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 (2);

               —

               In the alternative, and without prejudice to the previous head of claim, the deletion of the words ‘finances Shabiha in the region of Latika’ inserted in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 and to Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s basic fundamental human rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:

                           —

                           The applicant was not informed in advance of his inclusion in the contested measures, and was not even informed when the contested measures were promulgated;

                           —

                           The applicant had no notice of the allegations against him or of his proposed inclusion in these measures, and had no right to be heard in a process in which allegations against him could be properly put, responded to and rigorously tested; and

                           —

                           The contested measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze the assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence before a tribunal or court able to assess and test his comments and evidence against him.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion, as:

                           —

                           The applicant was given no reasons in advance of publication of the contested measures;

                           —

                           The ‘grounds for listing’ do not provide the applicant with sufficient information to make it possible for him to know why the defendant considers that the applicant should be included; and

                           —

                           There is no indication at all of the respect in which the applicant is said to be responsible for the repression of civilians in Syria.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification and proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation, and to private and family life, as:

                           —

                           The contested measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on his fundamental rights; and

                           —

                           The contested measures are unjustified in their application to the applicant, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a total asset freeze and travel ban is the least onerous means of ensuring any legitimate objective, nor that the harm to the applicant and his family is justified and proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding to apply these restrictive measures to the applicant, as:

                           —

                           No evaluation has apparently been carried out by the defendant as regard the applicant as to whether he can actually be said to be ‘responsible’ for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria;

                           —

                           In the alternative, if any such assessment has been carried out, in so far as the applicant is able to comment on it at all, the defendant erred in concluding that there was justification for including the applicant in the restrictive measures.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-158/95)

text:
No C 208/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 8 . 95
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are                        return on an investment, the behaviour of an investor
the same as those relied upon with regard to Regulation                           operating under normal market conditions . The
(EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case C- 9/95 (2 ).                                           estimated costs of insolvency ( shareholder loans,
                                                                                dismantling installations, ground clearance ) would
(•) OJ No L 51 , 8 . 3 . 1995 , p . 8 .                                           be clearly higher than the cost of withdrawing and
( 2 ) OJ No C 54 , 10 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                        compensating for losses . The desire to protect an
                                                                                image must also be included as falling under the
                                                                                criterion of return on investment in its widest sense .
                                                                                Moreover, when making a comparison with the
                                                                                conduct of a hypothetical pri\*ate investor regard
                                                                                must also be had to the situation in the particular
Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Federal Republic of                          Member State ; the particular social, legal and
Germany against the Commission of the European                                    economic conditions in the Federal Republic of
                              Communities                                         Germany, like the principle enshrined in the Basic
                           ( Case C-158/95 )                                      Law that ownership involves social responsibility,
                                                                                must not be disregarded,
                             ( 95 /C 208/08 )
                                                                             — the payment of DM 20 million to the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH is the making available of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        risk capital in accordance with normal investment
European Communities on 22 May 1995 by the Federal                                practice under market conditions,
Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs,                        — the sum of DM 56 million for particular items of
D-53107 Bonn .
                                                                                expenditure was covered by the Commission's
                                                                                approval of the support measures in August
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      1988/June 1989 . The basis for those measures was
                                                                                the 1987 Framework Agreement, of which the
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                        Commission was aware, and the agreement in it to
      concerning a proposed State aid by the Federal State of                     transfer the assets without burdens of the past
      Bavaria      to    the     EGKS-Stahlunternehmen       Neue                 ('Altlasten'). It is a misuse of powers for the
      Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg, and                          Commission now to claim that the aids concerned
      Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH , Meitingen-Herbertshofen                              are not capable of approval ,
       ( COM(95 ) 814 final );
                                                                         — breach of the principle of proportionality: the financial
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   measures in question have only minimal effects on the
                                                                             Community steel market. The undertaking's share of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          total crude steel production in the ECSC was 0,2 % in
                                                                              1993 . The undertaking's range of products has hardly
— Insufficient statement of reasons ( Article 15 , first                     any supraregional importance .
      paragraph, of the ECSC Treaty): the Bavarian
      Government has explained on numerous occasions that
      the proposed payment to the pro rata loss compensation
      is an act of a shareholder voluntarily introducing its own
      capital ( in order to increase capital reserves for the
      purpose of setting them off against the loss carry-over ).         Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the
      The Commission refuses to regard the cases given by                   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      way of example as adequate proof that taking over losses
      in order to protect an image is the conduct of an investor                                 ( Case C-159/95 )
      operating under market conditions . The Commission                                           ( 95/C 208/09 )
      also starts out from incorrect findings of fact and
      wrongly evaluates the facts,                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— infringement of the right to be heard : The Commission
      has not heard the views of the Bavarian Government as
                                                                         22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
      regards its intention to treat the injection by Bavaria as a       its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      ' lost subsidy' ( verlorener ZuschuS ); in its notice OJ No
                                                                         at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
      C 377, p. 3 it had found that in order to privatize the
      State 's shares the Bavarian Government intended to
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
      make a pro rata contribution to compensate for losses as
      an 'injection' into the equity of the company,                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— infringement of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty:                    — declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to
                                                                              the Commission within the requisite period of time the
      — the injection of capital of DM 125,7 million in order                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions
           to compensate for losses is, from the point of view of             necessary in order to comply with Council Directive


title: Case T-21/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Germany v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/42

         Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-21/10)
   2010/C 100/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 9049 of 13 November 2009, notified to the applicant by letter of 16 November 2009, reducing the assistance granted to the Single Programming Document Objective 2 Saarland (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decisions C(97)1123 of 7 May 1997 and C(1999) 4928 of 28 December 1999;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the financial assistance granted from the ERDF in respect of the Single Programming Document (1997-1999) for the Objective 2 region of the Saarland in the Federal Republic of Germany.
   The applicant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its action.
   First, the applicant complains that there is no legal basis for the flat-rate approach to and extrapolation of financial corrections in the funding period 1994-1999, which covers the Single Programming Document.
   Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) since the conditions for a reduction do not apply. It submits, in particular, in that regard that the Commission misconstrued the notion of ‘irregularity’. Furthermore, although the Commission made an assumption regarding systemic errors, it did not establish that the national authorities responsible for the administration of Structural Funds were in breach of their obligations under Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88. The assumptions regarding systemic errors in relation to administration and control are, moreover, according to the applicant, based on erroneous findings of fact. The applicant also submits that important aspects of the factual background have been determined and assessed incorrectly.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits by its third plea in law that the reductions put forward in the contested decision are disproportionate. The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission failed to exercise its discretion under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88. Furthermore, the flat-rate corrections applied are in excess of the (potential) loss to the Community budget. The applicant also takes the view that the extrapolation of errors is disproportionate because specific errors cannot be applied to a heterogeneous whole.
   By its fourth plea in law the applicant alleges a breach of essential procedural requirements. In this respect, the applicant complains about the inadequacy of the reasons put forward for the contested decision and the procedures adopted by the defendant at the end of the funding period. The applicant submits that the contested decision does not disclose how and why the Commission set the flat rates applied at the level that it did. Furthermore, the Commission changed the findings of the assessors working in situ without conducting a further assessment and failed or failed sufficiently to take into account the submission of the German authorities.
   Finally, the applicant puts forward a fifth plea in law whereby the defendant infringed the principle of partnership inasmuch as it initially confirms the adequacy of administrative and control systems, but bases the contested decision on systemic failings in the administrative and control system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p.1).


title: Case T-413/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Grigoriadis and Others v European Parliament and Others

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/29

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Grigoriadis and Others v European Parliament and Others
   (Case T-413/14)
   (2014/C 439/39)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Grigoris Grigoriadis (Athens, Greece), Faidra Grigoriadou (Athens, Greece), Ioannis Tsolias (Thessaloniki, Greece), Dimitrios Alexopoulos (Thessaloniki, Greece), Nikolaos Papageorgiou (Athens, Greece) and Ioannis Marinopoulos (Athens, Greece), (represented by: K. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendants failed to legislate in order that the bonds which the applicants purchased from the Hellenic Republic are expressly exempt from the compulsory participation of holders of Greek State bonds governed by Greek law in P.S.I. (private sector involvement in debt relief);

               —

               grant the applicants by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act the ability to receive 100 % of the value of the bonds which were included in P.S.I. without their being asked and without their agreement;

               —

               grant compensation of EUR 5 00  000 by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act to each of the applicants for the hardship, distress and gross breach of fundamental rights that they have suffered.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: The legislative and other acts which led Greece to the compulsory participation of the holders of Greek State bonds governed by Greek law in P.S.I. are in reality Community measures.

               2.

               Second plea: The measures which the Greek Government adopted to deal with Greek public debt were in reality imposed by the institutions of the European Union, in particular the ECB and the European Commission.

               3.

               Third plea: The defendants failed to legislate, and to explicitly exempt the applicants’ bonds governed by Greek law by means of the acts of the Council of Ministers by which the terms governing the application of P.S.I. in Greece were specified.

               4.

               Fourth plea: The failure to exempt the applicants and their express compensation from P.S.I. have caused them direct, personal and serious harm and denied them enjoyment of their fundamental rights.

               5.

               Fifth plea: All the legislative measures of the Greek Government were adopted on the recommendation and, to be more precise, after decision of the Eurogroup, ΕCOFIN, the ECB and the European Commission.


title: Case C-335/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Scottish Land Court (United Kingdom) made on 18 June 2013 — Robin John Feakins v The Scottish Ministers

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Scottish Land Court (United Kingdom) made on 18 June 2013 — Robin John Feakins v The Scottish Ministers
   (Case C-335/13)
   2013/C 260/42
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Scottish Land Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robin John Feakins

      Defendant: The Scottish Ministers

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether, on a proper construction, Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1) applies:-

                           (a)

                           where a farmer meets the conditions for applying any two or more of the following articles: namely Article 19, Article 20, Article 21 Article 22, Article 23, Article 23a, of that Regulation and Article 37(2), Article 40, Article 42(3) and Article 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2); or only

                           (b)

                           where a farmer meets the conditions for two or more of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 23a [OMISSIS] Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 or separately two or more of Articles 37(2), 40, 42(3) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

               2.

               If Article 18(2) is interpreted in the manner set out in paragraph (l)(a) above, whether Article 18(2) is invalid in whole or in part on one of or both of the following grounds which are advanced by the appellant:

                           (a)

                           on the basis that the Commission, in enacting Regulation (EC) No 795/2004, did not have power to enact Article 18(2) to that effect; or

                           (b)

                           on the basis that the Commission, in enacting Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 did not state reasons for Article 18(2).

               3.

               If Article 18(2) is interpreted in the manner in paragraph (l)(a) above and question (2) falls to be answered in the negative, does Article 18(2) apply in the situation where a farmer has received a provisional approval of an allocation from the national reserve under Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 for a farm in 2005, but that allocation is not declared in the IACS form until 2007, when the farm was taken over by the farmer?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
   OJ L 141, p. 1

      (2)  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) 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001
   OJ L 270, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 1996 in Case C-77/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Bremen): Bruna-Alessandra Züchner v. Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse) Bremen (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Working population)

text:
No C 9/8              LJN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           . . 97
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period                 person who undertakes, as an unremunerated activity, the
      laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 care of his or her handicapped spouse, whatever the extent
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              of that activity and the competence required in order to
      91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation                  perform it, where the person in question did not, in order
      of the laws of the Member States concerning                        to do so, abandon an occupational activity or interrupt
      telecommunications terminal equipment, including the               efforts to find employment.
      mutual recognition of their conformity, the Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                       (') OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 , p . 2 .
      obligations pursuant to the Directive and in particular            ( 2 ) OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979, p . 24 .
      under Article 1 7 thereof.
2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
      costs.
f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994, p . 10 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 128 , 23 . 5 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 1996
                                                                         in      Case C-262/95 : Commission of the European
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( J )
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                         (Failure to fulfil obligations — Transposition of Directives
                        of 7 November 1996                               82/1 76/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and
in Case C-77/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 86/280ZEEC on the discharge of certain dangerous
the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Bremen): Bruna                                  substances into the aquatic environment)
Alessandra Ziichner v. Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse )                                                ( 97/C 9/ 15 )
                                Bremen ( 1 )
(Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
    security — Directive 79/7ZEEC — Working population)                                    (Language of the case: German)
                               ( 97/C 9/ 14 )
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: German)                                      published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      In      Case    C-262/95 :        Commission   of the    European
                                                                         Communities         (Agent:       Gotz zur Hausen )   v.   Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Roder) — application
In Case C-77/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                     for a declaration that, by not adopting the necessary
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hanseatisches                      measures to comply with:
Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court), Bremen
( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bruna-Alessandra                       — Council Directive 82/ 1 76/EEC of 22 March 1982 on
Ziichner v. Handelskrankenkasse ( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen —                        limit values and quality objectives for mercury
on the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                          discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry ( 2 ),
 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security ( 2 ), and of the principles of               — Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983
Community law governing the liability of public                                 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium
authorities — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: L.                       discharges ( 3 ),
Sevon, President of Chamber, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz                  — Council Directive 84/ 156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                        limit values and quality objectives for mercury
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali
7 November 1996 , in which it has ruled :
                                                                                electrolysis industry (4 ),
Article 2 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle                 — Council Directive 84/491 /EEC of 9 October 1984 on
of equal treatment for men and women in matters of                              limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
social security must be interpreted as not covering a                           hexachlorocyclohexane ( 5 ), and


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-335/97 (1)                 from the register of Case C-125/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                       (2001/C 118/88)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-335/97: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp): Rijksdienst voor Pen-
sioenen v Wim Westenborg.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-105/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/91)
                                                                      By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-222/00 (1)                 from the register of Case C-105/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic .
                       (2001/C 118/89)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-222/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-225/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/92)
                                                                      By order of 8 March 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-125/00 (1)                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-225/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 118/90)                                ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Sociale Verzeke-
                                                                      ringsbank v Yamna Moughit.
By order of 14 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case T-306/05: Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Scippacercola and Terezakis/Commission

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/20

         Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Scippacercola and Terezakis/Commission
   (Case T-306/05)
   (2005/C 271/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the Commission Decision of 2 May 2005 received by the Applicants on 31 May 2005 refusing to open an in-depth investigation of the costs and revenues of AIA SA related to the provision of passenger security services, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services in order to establish whether the charges levied by the Athens International Airport SA constitute an abuse of a dominant position;

               —

               an order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the Respondent.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are individual users of the Athens International Airport of Spata. They contest the Commission's final Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004 (1) not to open an in-depth investigation of the allegedly excessive airport charges levied by Athens International Airport with regard to passenger security, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services.
   The applicants invoke an error of law and a manifest error in the appreciation of facts in so far as the Commission considered that the passenger security controls do not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 82 EC and that the car parking services do not constitute a relevant market.
   The applicants further allege that the Commission did not carry out a proper comparison of Athens International Airport of Spata's costs and revenues related to the provision of security services, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services as it did not verify the accuracy and substance of the information supplied by Athens International Airport of Spata.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Commission made an error of law by not identifying (i) the use of different rates for passenger terminal facility charges on international and domestic flights and (ii) the levying of a terminal facility charge and a security charge on scheduled flights which are not levied on charter flights.
   Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in that the Commission did not indicate the costs and revenues of Athens International Airport of Spata on which it based its conclusion that Athens International Airport of Spata does not engage in excessive pricing.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 123 of 27 April 2004, p. 18.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-81/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Alcatel Austria AG and Others, Siemens AG Österreich, Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Public procurement — Procedure for the award of public supply and works contracts — Review procedure)

text:
C 34/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 28 October 1999
in Case C-81/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 28 October 1999
the Bundesvergabeamt): Alcatel Austria AG and Others,
Siemens AG Österreich, Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG
  v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (1)                     in Case C-187/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Public procurement — Procedure for the award of public
      supply and works contracts — Review procedure)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                           (2000/C 34/10)                                  Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
                                                                           Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) —
                                                                           Directives 75/117/EEC and 79/7/EEC — Equal pay for men
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and women — Family and marriage allowances — Old-age
                                                                           pensions — Calculation — Failure to abolish discriminatory
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          conditions retroactively)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-81/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                         (2000/C 34/11)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-
beamt (Federal Procurement Office) (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Alcatel Austria AG and Others, Siemens AG Österreich,                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG and Bundesministerium für
Wissenschaft und Verkehr — on the interpretation of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
relating to the application of review procedures to the award                                 in the European Court Reports)
of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395,
p. 33) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
teyn (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Chamber,                In Case C-187/98: Commission of the European Communities
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                    (Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Galani-
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            Maragkoudaki and S. Vodina) — Application for a declaration
has given a judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it has                   that, by failing to abolish with retroactive effect, from the date
ruled:                                                                     of entry into force in Greece of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
1. The combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the              Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 3 of Council Directive
    second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Council Directive               75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
    89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the              the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the        the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45,
    application of review procedures to the award of public supply         p. 19), and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
    and public works contracts must be interpreted as meaning that         19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the
    the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting          principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
    authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to     social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24), regulations which impose
    the bidder in a tender procedure with which it mill conclude the       on married female workers conditions which are not imposed
    contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an      on their married male counterparts in respect of the grant to
    applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant             them as employees of family or marriage allowances which
    conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the          are taken into account in determining their income for the
    contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages.         purposes of calculating pension rights, the Hellenic Republic
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said provisions of
2. Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/665 cannot be interpreted       Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
    to the effect that, even where there is no award decision which        of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    may be the subject of an application to have it set aside, the         H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
    bodies in the Member States having power to review public              N. Fennelly, H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
    procurement procedures may hear applications under the con-            trar has given a judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it:
    ditions laid down in that provision.
                                                                           1. Declares that, by failing to abolish with retroactive effect, from
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                      the date of entry into force in Greece of Article 119 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
                                                                               by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 3 of Council Directive


title: Case F-70/15: Action brought on 28 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/49

         Action brought on 28 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-70/15)
   (2015/C 245/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the final decision transferring the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIP), adopted on 3 March 2011, for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 28 July 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to joining the service in accordance with the general implementing provisions, adopted on 3 March 2011, for Article 11(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-190/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys SA, Administración del Estado (Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition — Earlier trade mark — Procedure for filing — Filing by electronic means — Method enabling precise identification of the day, hour and minute when the application was filed)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys SA, Administración del Estado
   (Case C-190/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Definition and acquisition - Earlier trade mark - Procedure for filing - Filing by electronic means - Method enabling precise identification of the day, hour and minute when the application was filed)
   2012/C 133/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS)

      Defendants: Boys Toys SA, Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Priority — Procedure for filing — Method (e-mail) enabling precise identification of the day, hour and minute when the application was filed

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003 must be interpreted as precluding account being taken not only of the day but also of the hour and minute of filing of an application for a Community trade mark with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) for the purposes of establishing that trade mark’s priority over a national trade mark filed on the same day, where, according to the national legislation governing the registration of national trade marks, the hour and minute of filing are relevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-224/00: Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Turnover — Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Concurrent sanctions)

text:
C 213/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras,                   1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Archer Daniels Midland
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen,                       Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd jointly
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on, in                      and severally at EUR 43 875 000;
which it:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                            3.     Orders Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels
2.     Orders Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe                     Midland Ingredients Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay
       GmbH to bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay             three quarters of the Commission’s costs and orders the
       those incurred by the Commission.                                           Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 316 of 04.11.2000.                                                (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
in Case T-224/00: Archer Daniels Midland Company and
Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                              in Case T-230/00: Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe
                                                                              GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and                       (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Aggravating                       method of setting fines — Turnover — Mitigating circum-
circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation                      stances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
during the administrative procedure — Concurrent sanc-
                                 tions)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/54)
                           (2003/C 213/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-230/00, Daesang Corp., established in Seoul (South
In Case T-224/00, Archer Daniels Midland Company, estab-                    Korea), Sewon Europe GmbH, established in Eschborn
lished in Decatur, Illinois (United States of America), Archer              (Germany), represented by J.-F. Bellis and S. Reinart, lawyers,
Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd, established in Erith (United               and A. Kmiecik, solicitor, with an address for service in
Kingdom), represented by L. Martin Alegi and E.W. Batchelor,                Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                    (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for a
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils,                    reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission
R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annulment of                 Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding
Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating                     pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and                 EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 —                      2001 L 152, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the                   Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
fine imposed on the applicants, and counterclaim by the                     P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Commission for an increase in the amount of that fine, the                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Daesang Corp. and
on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                       Sewon Europe GmbH jointly and severally at EUR 7 128 240;


title: Case F-71/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v ECDC

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/50

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v ECDC
   (Case F-71/15)
   (2015/C 245/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the appeal assessor’s decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report in respect of 2013.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appeal assessor’s decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report in respect of 2013;

               —

               order the ECDC to pay the costs.


title: Case C-15/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg –Germany) — Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH v Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Award of a contract without initiating a tendering procedure — In-house award — Contractor legally separate from the contracting authority — Condition of ‘similar control’  — Contracting authority and contractor not linked by a relationship of control — Third party public authority exercising partial control over the contracting authority and control over the contractor which could be qualified as ‘similar’  — ‘Horizontal in-house transaction’ )

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg –Germany) — Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH v Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH
   (Case C-15/13) (1)

   ((Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of a contract without initiating a tendering procedure - In-house award - Contractor legally separate from the contracting authority - Condition of ‘similar control’ - Contracting authority and contractor not linked by a relationship of control - Third party public authority exercising partial control over the contracting authority and control over the contractor which could be qualified as ‘similar’ - ‘Horizontal in-house transaction’))
   2014/C 202/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH

      Defendant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the term ‘public contract’ in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Possible inclusion of a contract between a company and a university subject to the control of the same public body, which is the public contracting authority within the meaning of the directive (horizontal in-house transaction) — Extent of the control of that public authority

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the supply of products concluded between (i) a university which is a contracting authority and whose purchases of products and services are controlled by a German Federal State, and (ii) an undertaking under private law, owned by the Federation and by Federal States, including the abovementioned Federal State, constitutes a public contract for the purposes of that provision, and must therefore be subject to the public procurement rules laid down in that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-444/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — Republic of Poland) — Insolvency proceedings opened against MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Refusal of recognition by a Member State of a judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by the competent court of another Member State and of the judgments concerning the course and closure of those insolvency proceedings)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — Republic of Poland) — Insolvency proceedings opened against MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-444/07) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal of recognition by a Member State of a judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by the competent court of another Member State and of the judgments concerning the course and closure of those insolvency proceedings)
   2010/C 63/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Główny Urząd Celny w Saarbrücken

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — interpretation of Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Attachment by the authorities of a Member State of funds held in a bank account of an undertaking after insolvency proceedings in respect of that undertaking have been opened in another Member State, notwithstanding the provisions of the national law of the State in which those proceedings have been opened — Refusal of recognition by a Member State, in which secondary insolvency proceedings have not been opened, of the insolvency proceedings opened by a court of another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in particular Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main action, after the main insolvency proceedings have been opened in a Member State the competent authorities of another Member State, in which no secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened, are required, subject to the grounds for refusal derived from Articles 25(3) and 26 of that regulation, to recognise and enforce all judgments relating to the main insolvency proceedings and, therefore, are not entitled to order, pursuant to the legislation of that other Member State, enforcement measures relating to the assets of the debtor declared insolvent that are situated in its territory when the legislation of the State of the opening of proceedings does not so permit and the conditions to which application of Articles 5 and 10 of the regulation is subject are not met.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-16/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Action brought on 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-16/11)
   2011/C 63/43
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary legal provisions to transpose Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community, (1) or by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 May 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.


title: Case F-22/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission
   (Case F-22/08) (1)

   (2009/C 44/142)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 33.


title: Judgment of the Court of 19 December 2008 in Joined Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08 Olga Rindal (Case E-11/07); Therese Slinning, represented by legal guardian Olav Slinning (Case E-1/08) and The Norwegian State, represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad (Social security — Freedom to provide services — National health insurance systems — Hospital treatment costs incurred in another EEA State — Experimental and test treatment)

text:
               4.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 124/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 19 December 2008
   in Joined Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08 Olga Rindal (Case E-11/07); Therese Slinning, represented by legal guardian Olav Slinning (Case E-1/08) and The Norwegian State, represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad

      (Social security — Freedom to provide services — National health insurance systems — Hospital treatment costs incurred in another EEA State — Experimental and test treatment)

   2009/C 124/07
   In Joined Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08, between Olga Rindal (Case E-11/07), and Therese Slinning (Case E-1/08) and the Norwegian State, represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad – REQUEST to the Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal) and Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of the rules on the free movement of services in the European Economic Area, in particular the interpretation of Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement, and of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Henrik Bull and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 19 December 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               It may be compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State. Firstly, that will be the case if the system for reimbursement of costs for treatment abroad does not place a heavier burden on those who receive treatment abroad than on those who receive treatment in hospitals forming part of the social security system of the home State. Secondly, it will be the case if any such heavier burden only results from necessary and reasonable means being employed to attain aims which may legitimately justify restrictions on the free movement of hospital services.

               2.

               It is without significance that the method of treatment itself is internationally recognised and documented for other medical indications than those which the patient in question has.
               It is without significance for the answer to the first question that the method of treatment in question must be considered to be implemented in a home State which only provides it in the form of research projects or, exceptionally, on a case by case basis. Nor does it matter that the home State is considering its implementation in the future.

               3.

               It may be compatible with Articles 36 and 37 EEA to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a justifiable time limit.
               It is without significance for the answer to the third question that the patient, having decided to receive treatment abroad rather than an adequate treatment in the home State, does not get coverage for the costs of treatment abroad to the same extent as the adequate treatment offered in the home State would have cost.

               4.

               It is without significance for the answers to the first question and to the third question, first paragraph, that

                           —

                           the home State as a matter of fact does not offer the treatment received abroad;

                           —

                           the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State, because the patient was never assessed for that treatment, even if the treatment is offered there;

                           —

                           the patient has been assessed in the home State, but has not been given the offer of further surgical treatment because the patient is not considered to get documented benefit from the treatment;

                           —

                           the treatment given abroad actually resulted in an improvement of the specific patient’s state of health.

                     However, it may be of significance to the third question, first paragraph, that the patient in question, within a medically justifiable time limit, as a matter of fact has not been offered an adequate treatment in the home State. This is so when the home State refuses to cover treatment abroad in a situation where it has not been able, within a medically justifiable time limit, to honour an obligation under its own social security law to provide the treatment to the patient in one of its own hospitals.


title: Case C-411/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 — Optocouplers)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-411/07) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 - Optocouplers)
   (2008/C 301/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Optical-electrical circuit that is an integral part of a machine enclosed in a plastic case containing a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic film and a photodetector and amplifying circuit and is intended for incorporation in communication and computer equipment, consumer electronics and industrial machines — Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 of the CN
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that an optocoupler, regardless of whether not it contains an amplifying circuit, falls within heading 8541.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Action brought on 7 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Austrian Republic (Case C-328/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/21
Appeal Tribunal, London, of 14 August 1996, which was                Action brought on 7 October 1996 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1996 , for a             of the European Communities against the Austrian
preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against                                         Republic
T. H. Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd, on the following                                       ( Case C-328/96 )
questions :
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/41 )
                                                                     An action against the Austrian Republic was brought before
1 . Is it compatible with Community law to apply, to a               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     claim for equal pay for equal work without                      7 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
     discrimination on grounds of sex, a rule of national law        Communities , represented by Claudia Schmidt and Hendrik
     which limits a claimant's entitlement to arrears of             van Lier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents , with an
     remuneration or damages for breach of the principle of          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
     equal pay to a period of two years prior to the date on         de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
     which the proceedings were instituted, in circumstances         Kirchberg .
     where :
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should :
     ( a ) that rule of national law applies to all claims for
           equal pay without sex discrimination , but to no          — declare that the Austrian Republic has failed to fulfil its
           other claims;                                                 obligations under Council Directives 93/37/EEC ( ] ) and
                                                                         89/665/EEC ( 2 ) and under Article 30 of the EC Treaty in
                                                                         connection with the new building for the Lower
                                                                         Austrian St Polten Landhaus- und Kulturbezirk in
     ( b ) rules which are in this respect more favourable to            awarding the contracts, which were awarded in the
           claimants are applied to other claims in the field of         period before 6 February 1996 but, on 7 March 1996 ,
           employment law, including claims in respect of                had not yet been performed or could reasonably have
           breach of the contract of employment, racial                  been unwound ;
           discrimination in pay, unlawful deduction from
           wages, and sex discrimination in matters other than
                                                                     — order the Austrian Republic to pay the costs .
           pay ;
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     ( c ) the national court has no discretion to extend the
           two-year period in any circumstance , even where a        The Commission points out that, from the time of its
           claimant was delayed in bringing her claim because        accession to the EEA Agreement and, a forteriori, from the
           her employer deliberately misrepresented to her the       date of its accession to the European Union, the Austrian
           level of remuneration received by men performing          Republic had to comply with European legislation including
           like work to her own ?                                    the directives on the award of public contracts . It states as
                                                                     follows with regard to the individual infringements :
                                                                     — Infringement of Council Directive 93/37/EEC ( Directive
2 . In particular, having regard to the consistent case-law of           on coordination of public works contracts ): the
     the Court that rights conferred by the direct effect of             Niederosterreichische Landeshauptstadt Planungs
     Community law are to be exercised under the conditions              gesellschaft mbH ('Noplan ') relied at the material time
     determined by national law, provided inter alia that                on its procurement measures 'Allgemeine Angebots- und
     those conditions are no less favourable than those                  Vertragsbestimmungen' [ General Tendering and
     relating to similar domestic actions, how is the                    Contract Conditions , ' AAVB '] in the version of
     expression ' similar domestic actions' to be interpreted in         1 January 1995 and therefore did not comply either with
     the case of a claim for equal pay in circumstance where             the advertising rules ( Article 1 1 of the Directive ) or with
     the conditions laid down by national legislation                    the obligation to inform unsuccessful tenderers
      implementing the principle of equal pay differ from                ( Article 8 of the Directive ). In at least one award
      those laid down by other national legislation in the field         procedure , Noplan disregarded the provisions of the
      of employment law, including legislation relating to               directive by setting out in the tender documents a
      breach of the contract of employment, racial                       particular specification favouring 'Unix products',
      discrimination, unlawful deductions from wages , and               which is contrary to Article 10 ( 6 ) of the Directive .
      sex discrimination in matters other than pay ?                     Lastly, the contracts in question were awarded without
                                                                         ( a ) complying with the criteria for qualitative selection
                                                                         set out in the Directive ( e.g. the grounds for exclusion set
                                                                         forth in Article 24 ) when considering whether a given
                                                                         undertaking qualified to take part in the tender and ( b )
                                                                         applying the criteria listed in Article 30 for the award of
                                                                         contracts .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 354/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
 — Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: the                       Security Tribunal, Bouches du Rhone] of 1 March 1996 ,
       infringement of Article 10 ( 6 ) of Directive 93/37/EEC            received at the Court Registry on 15 October 1996, for a
       amounts at the same time to an infringement of                     preliminary ruling in the case ofJ. Farias v. Caisse Regionale
       Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The same is true of the               d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-Est [South-East Regional
       preference for Lower Austrian materials and/or                     Health Insurance Fund] on the following question:
       undertakings contained in point 2.10 of the AAVB
       where the tenders involved are of equal value to other             Can a Portuguese national residing in Portugal who reached
       tenders .                                                          the age of 60 on 17 May 1992, and did not receive , in
                                                                          addition to his invalidity pension, supplementary allowance
— Infringement of Directive 88/665/EEC ( directive on                     from the Fonds National de Solidarite [National Solidarity
       review procedures ): contrary to Articles 1 and 2 ( 1 ) ( h )      Fund] solely because he was resident outside France, claim
       of the Directive, point 2.5 of the AAVB excludes ab initio         under Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1247/92 ( ] ) that his
       and unconditionally all claims which might arise on the            entitlement was acquired before 1 June 1992 , the date of
       part of contractors in connection with an award                    entry into force of that regulation ?
       procedure .
                                                                          ( 1 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( ] ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 54.
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma by              Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno,
order of that court of 2 October 1996 in the case of 1 .                 by order of that court of 17 August 1996 in the case of
CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop a                     Dilexport S.r.l. v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
r.l. and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against AIMA — Azienda di                                                    Stato
           Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato Agricolo                                             Case C-343/96
                 ( Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 354/44
                               ( 96/C 354/42 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno
[Magistrates Court, Rome] of 2 October 1996 , received at                 [District Magistrate 's Court, Bolzano, Vipiteno Division] of
the Court Registry on 8 October 1996 , for a preliminary                  17 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
ruling in the case of 1 . CO.NA.TA. — Consorzio Nazionale                on 30 September 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Tabacchi Soc . Coop a r.l . and 2 . Agrindustria Sri against             Dilexport Sri . v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
AIMA — Aziende di Stato per gli Interventi sul Mercato                   on the following questions :
Agricolo [State Intervention Agency] on the question of the
validity of Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( ! ) of           1 . Must Community law be interpreted as precluding the
17 December 1993 in connection with the principle of the                        adoption by a Member State of a provision such as
non-retroactivity of Community legislation since it cannot                      Article 29 of Italian Law No 428 of 29 December 1990
be justified either by the previous regulations or by an                        which makes the repayment of charges levied in breach
overriding public interest that warrants the sacrifice of                       of Community law subject to time-limits for
rights acquired on the basis of previous legislation, and                       prescription or lapse and to conditions as to proof which
entails an unforeseeable modification to the detriment of                       are different from and more restrictive than those laid
subjective rights, thereby undermining the legitimate                           down in the general rules of civil law ? In particular, with
expectations of the addressees of' the measure in                               regard to the principle that the procedural conditions for
question .                                                                      exercising the right to reimbursement established by
                                                                                national law 'may not be less favourable than those
(!) OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                                      relating to similar actions of a domestic nature', what is
                                                                                to be understood by the expression ' similar actions of a
                                                                                domestic nature '?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des                   2 . Do the fundamental principles of the Community order
Affaires de Sécurité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône by                            preclude the introduction by a Member State — in a
judgment of that Tribunal of 1 March 1996 in the case of J.                     limited manner and with reference only to a specific
Farias against Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du                          sphere consisting of a homogenous category of fiscal
                                   Sud-Est                                      levies made up in particular of charges linked to the
                                                                                Community order — of special derogating provisions to
                            ( Case C-339/96 )                                   restrict and limit the right to recovery of sums unduly
                              ( 96/C 354/43 )                                   paid, thus derogating from the general conditions for
                                                                                recovery of sums unduly paid laid down in Article 2033
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of the Civil Code ? In particular, may the principle of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal des                            non-discrimination be understood in a restrictive sense,
Affaires de Securite Sociale des Bouches du Rhone [Social                       and may it thus be considered that a provision of a


title: Case T-478/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/58

         Action brought on 3 September 2013 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)
   (Case T-478/13)
   2013/C 344/106
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NumberFour AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Götz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inaer Helicópteros, SA (Mutxamel, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2013 given in Case R 1000/2012-5;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENFORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 059 624

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EINFOREX’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 6 530 927

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-706/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-706/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/59)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.