title: Action brought on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Council of the European Union (Case C-100/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of Sweden,
                                                                    represented by Lotty Nordling, Rättschef, with an address
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 Rue
Ð annul Commission Decision SG(98) D/1124 of                        H. Heine, Luxembourg.
     9 February 1998 in its entirety on the grounds of
     breach of the EC Treaty and breach of essential
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
     procedural requirements and misuse of powers by the
     Commission,
                                                                    Ð pursuant to Article 173, declare invalid the 1998 TAC
                                                                         Regulation (EC No 45/98) (1), in so far as the
Ð order the Commission of the European Communities                       regulation provides for the allocation of cod in
     to pay the costs.                                                   zone IIIbcd, and
                                                                    Ð order the council to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      costs.
Breach of the EC Treaty, breach of essential procedural             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
requirements and misuse of powers: The aid which is the
subject of the proceedings is to be regarded as existing aid,       Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of
since the Commission failed to express its opinion on the           accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
proposed aid within a reasonable time. The opening of a             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
formal examination procedure therefore conflicts with the           to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
Treaty, since the legally incorrect classification as a newly       as worded according to Council Decision 95/1/EC,
notified aid is thereby effected and the application of the         Euratom, ECSC (2), should be annulled:
prohibition of implementation under Article 93(3)
expressly stated. The applicant considers that by the letter
of 19 March 1997 at the latest it transmitted in full to the        For the year 1998 a quantity of 86 547 tonnes of
Commission all the information which the Commission                 Community cod is available for fishing in Community
required to be able to express an opinion on the                    waters in zone IIIb, c, d. According to the conditions laid
compatibility of the measure with the Treaty; none of the           down in Article 121(1) of the Act of Accession, Sweden
later questions' of the Commission were in any way                 should have been allocated 29 921 tonnes (0.35037
material for the decision, but evidently served only to             50 000 + 0.4  36 947  400  1 976) of that amount.
delay a decision.                                                   This is taking into account the fact that the transfer of
                                                                    400 tonnes to Poland under the agreement between the
                                                                    Community and Poland has been deducted from Sweden's
The Commission asserts that it is entitled to oppose the            quota and that in 1998 1 976 tonnes of Sweden's quota is
implementation of the measures after proper notification            to be transferred to other Member States in accordance
by the Member State under the Lorenz procedure'. That              with the agreement made in connection with the signing
opposition is evidently intended to have the consequence            of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden has been allocated
that thereafter (ex tunc or ex nunc?) there is no existing          under Regulation (EC) No 45/98 29 246 tonnes, which is
aid. That follows from the final paragraph of the                   675 tonnes less than results from the Act of Accession.
Background' section of the contested decision and from
the last sentence of Point 2.1 and the last sentence of             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December 1997
Point 5.1 of the Commission's Guidelines'. In the                      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
applicant's opinion, there is no such right of opposition;              total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under
moreover, even supposing that it did exist as stated in the             which they may be fished (OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.
Commission's Guidelines', it was exercised too late, and
is therefore of no effect.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
                                                                    gerichtshof by order of that court of 5 March 1998 in the
Action brought on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of                    case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.
     Sweden against the Council of the European Union                   Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V.
                       (Case C-100/98)                                                       (Case C-101/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/33)
                        (98/C 209/32)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was             European Communities by an order of the 1st Civil
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of


title: Case C-503/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds — Region of Liguria)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-503/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds - Region of Liguria)
   (2008/C 171/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Adoption and application, by the region of Liguria, of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-335/11: Action brought on 23 June 2011 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

         Action brought on 23 June 2011 — Republic of Bulgaria v Commission
   (Case T-335/11)
   2011/C 331/45
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: Tsvetko Ivanov and Elina Petranova)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission Implementing Decision of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [notified under document C(2011) 2517]

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [notified under document C(2011) 2517 (1)] in so far as it concerns the Republic of Bulgaria, or, in the alternative,

               —

               reduce the correction, applied to expenses pursuant to the single area payment scheme under the EAGF from 10 % to 5 %, and reduce the correction under EAFRD Axis 2 (‘Improving the environment and the countryside’) of the rural development programme, from 10 % to 5 %, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant makes four pleas in law.
   1.   First plea, claiming infringement of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
       (2)

   First, the Republic of Bulgaria argues that the Commission has not demonstrated any infringement of EU legislation by Bulgaria. In the contested decision, the Commission proposed financial corrections of 10 % for expenses under the single area payment scheme and Axis 2 (‘Improving the environment and the countryside’) of the rural development programme, on the ground of alleged weaknesses in the functioning of the LPIS-GIS, making it impossible to carry out a ‘key’ control, such impossibility evidencing serious defects in the control system, entailing a major risk of significant losses for the fund. A correction of 5 % has also been proposed in respect of complements to direct payments, on the ground of the said weaknesses in the functioning of the LPIS-GIS. The applicant produces evidence that administrative cross checks and on-the-spot checks took place, disproving the Commission’s allegations.
   Secondly, the applicant argues that, as regards the amounts excluded from financing, neither the nature nor the gravity of the infringement of the relevant legislation were correctly assessed by the Commission. In that context, the applicant argues that a ‘key’ control even more rigorous than that required by the relevant legislation was carried out, and that the Commission’s conclusion that there was no such control does not reflect the actual state of control systems in the Republic of Bulgaria.
   Thirdly, the applicant argues that the risk of loss arising to the EU budget has not been correctly assessed. It argues that the Commission erred on the subject of the financial consequences of the infringement of EU legislation, basing its reasoning on the final report of the conciliation body in Case 10/BG/442, where it is expressly stated that the Bulgarian authorities monitored permanent pastures on-the-spot 100 %.
   2.   Second plea, claiming infringement of the principle of proportionality

   According to the applicant, which bases its argument on Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the requirement of the General Court that the amount of the correction must be clearly linked to possible loss to the Union, the percentage of the financial correction must be proportionate to the irrregularities found and the risk for the EU budget. The corrections imposed in this case exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary for achieving the aim pursued by the clearance procedure, and must therefore be reduced.
   3.   Third plea, claiming infringement of the principle of legal certainty

   The applicant argues that the Commission has infringed the principle of legal certainty by disregarding the guidelines which it itself set out in Document VI/5530/97. (3) Having regard to the fact that the Bulgarian authorities carried out a key control, the Commission should, on the basis of the above-mentioned document, have determined the financial corrections at 5 % instead of 10 % in respect of expenses under the single area payment scheme and Axis 2 (‘Improving the environment and the countryside’) of the rural development programme.
   Moreover, the applicant considers that the provisions relied on by the Commission in order to posit three rules which, it claims, were not complied with by the Republic of Bulgaria burdens Member States with certain obligations which are different from those set out in the official communication. Not only were two of the three rules not provided for in the regulations in question, but nor were there any well-defined assessment criteria for their implementation. Nor were there any well-defined assessment criteria for the implementation of the third rule. The Republic of Bulgaria argues that it has complied with the requirements of Regulation No 796/2004. (4)

   4.   Fourth plea, claiming infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU

   The contested decision has the effect of excluding from EU financing expenses incurred by the Republic of Bulgaria amounting to EUR 24 543 106,87. According to the applicant, given that the decision adopted is to its detriment, it has a major interest in obtaining from the European Commission duly reasoned explanations as to why financial corrections were imposed. The applicant maintains that the Commission has not set out sufficiently clearly and unequivocally why it imposed financial corrections, and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision in relation to the applicant.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (3)  Document No VI/5330/97 of the Commission of 23 December 1997, headed ‘Guidelines regarding the calculation of the financial consequences on preparation of the decision for clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee accounts’.

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


title: Case C-322/07 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2007 by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission , T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission , T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission , T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission , T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission , T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission , T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission , T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission , and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/5

         Appeal brought on 12 July 2007 by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission, T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission, T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission, T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission, T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission, T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission, T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission, T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission, and T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission

   (Case C-322/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (represented by: I. Brinker, S. Hirsbrunner, lawyers, J. Schwarze, University Professor)

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

               —

               Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (Case T-125/02) in so far as it affects the appellant;

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (1) in so far as it affects the appellant;
               In the alternative: a reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 3 of that decision;

               —

               In the alternative to the second indent above: referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               In any event, an order for the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the appellant both before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant raises the following pleas: the Court of First Instance's reasoning in relation to the setting of the amount of the fine infringes both the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. The appellant thus claims that substantive Community law has been infringed. The Court erroneously assumed it to be insignificant that the appellant is a family business and, in comparison with the other undertakings, does not have direct access to capital markets. Instead the Court wrongly pointed out that an undertaking cannot rely to its advantage on an infringement of law which was committed to the benefit of other undertakings. However, the appellant did not rely on that argument in any way. The Court did not appropriately assess the structural differences between the appellant and the other undertakings which are accused of committing an infringement. The Court thereby infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
   Moreover, the Court wrongly assumed that the appellant was a party to the infringement in the period prior to October 1993. In that regard, the Court gave insufficient proof, assessed that proof contradictorily and, moreover, falsified it. It also infringed the presumption of innocence and the appellant's rights of defence. The appellant thus claims that there was a procedural error. The Court's reasoning for its finding that the official meetings of the AEMCP association between January 1992 and September 1993 served as a setting for fixing prices on the European market is insufficient and contradictory. Furthermore, the appellant alleges that the Court committed legal errors in assuming that the appellant participated in unofficial meetings, in which prices at national level were discussed.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1.


title: Case C-341/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2012 by Mizuno KK against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/25

         Appeal brought on 17 July 2012 by Mizuno KK against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-341/12 P)
   2012/C 287/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties to the proceedings

      Appellant: Mizuno KK (represented by: T. Wessing, T. Raab and H. Lauf, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 and the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 — Case R 0821/2010-1;

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and in the present proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal challenges the General Court’s judgment of 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11, whereby the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Golfino AG and Mizuno KK.
   The appellant bases its appeal essentially on the following grounds:

               The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the scope of protection and the distinctiveness of an existing figurative mark comprising the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’. The General Court wrongly proceeded on the basis that the combination of both those elements was of no importance.

               Hence, the General Court wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier figurative mark and the mark applied for by the appellant, comprising the letter ‘G’, the symbol ‘+’, and an arrow symbol, inasmuch as, in the assessment of the similarity of the signs, the General Court did not focus on the overall impression of the two marks, but rather on their individual details.

               In doing so, the General Court incorrectly assumed that the similarity of the letter ‘G’ in both figurative marks was of greater importance than their other, different, elements. In order properly to assess the marks, the General Court ought, however, to have examined only the overall symbols, and not focused on the letters ‘G’ in isolation.

               Although it is true that both of the marks at issue consist in the phoneme/g/, the focal point of the marks clearly lies in their graphic design and not in their phonetic arrangement. Consequently, the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks has not been shown.


title: Case C-226/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln (Directive 2003/96/EC — Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Exemption for energy products used to produce electricity — Option to impose taxation for reasons of environmental policy — Direct effect of the exemption)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln
   (Case C-226/07) (1)

   (Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Exemption for energy products used to produce electricity - Option to impose taxation for reasons of environmental policy - Direct effect of the exemption)
   (2008/C 223/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Direct effect — National legislation not exempting gas oil used to produce electricity from mineral oil tax
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts — in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period — in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-506/04: Action brought on 31 December 2004 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/28

         Action brought on 31 December 2004 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-506/04)
   (2005/C 193/47)
   Language of the application: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 December 2004 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner and C. Ofner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The other party before the Board of Appeal was CHIPITA INTERNATIONAL S.A. INTERNATIONAL DIVISION, Athens.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of 15 October 2004 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case R 39/2004-2);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity is sought:

               The figurative mark PAN SPEZIALITÄTEN for goods in Class 30 (prepared baking mixtures for bread, cakes, bread rolls, croissants, pizzas…) — Community trade mark No 382 374.

               Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

               CHIPITA INTERNATIONAL S.A. INTERNATIONAL DIVISION

               Applicant for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The registered trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           The trade mark is descriptive and is thus not capable of being protected under Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation as regards goods containing cereals or manufactured with cereal products. The trade mark is deceptive in the sense of Article 7(1)(g) of the Regulation as regards those goods not containing cereals or not manufactured with cereal products.


title: Case T-231/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — EMA v Drakeford (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal decision — Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — EMA v Drakeford
   (Case T-231/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Non-renewal decision - Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 363/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A Duron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: David Drakeford (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents); European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and E. Maurage, acting as Agents); European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and V. Peres de Almeida, acting as Agents); European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, S. Gabbi and C. Pintado, acting as Agents); European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 5 February 2014 in Drakeford v EMA (F-29/13, ECR SC, EU:F:2014:10) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 5 February 2014 in Drakeford v EMA (F-29/13, ECR SC, EU:F:2014:10) in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in relation to financial matters for the time after the order was made;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               4.

               Reserves the costs for Mr David Drakeford and for the European Medicines Agency (EMA);

               5.

               The European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) are ordered to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.06.2014.


title: Case T-450/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2016 — Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark luvoworld — Earlier EU work mark luvo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2016 — Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)
   (Case T-450/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark luvoworld - Earlier EU work mark luvo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1480/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Advanced Mailing Solutions and Satkirit Holdings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Satkirit Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of 29 March 1996 in the case of Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL against Région Wallonne (Case C-129/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/21
      (v )  matters of which the defenders were aware but              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du
            which they did not have opportunity to raise               Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of
            before the issuing court ?                                 29 March 1996 in the case of Inter-Environnement
                                                                                Wallonie ASBL against Région Wallonne
Powers ancillary to the exercise of Article 38 (1 ) power to                                     ( Case C- 1 29/96 )
sist or stay                                                                                ( 96/C 180/44 )
7. Whether the Article 37 ( 1 ) appellate court has power to
      make an order for a stay or sist of the enforcement              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
      proceedings conditional upon the judgment debtor                 Section d'Administration ( Council of "State, Administrative
      providing security or guarantee sufficient to protect the        Section ) of 29 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
      interests of the judgment creditor in the event that the
                                                                       Registry on 23 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
      judgment debtor is unsuccessful in its appeal against the
      judgment in the issuing State .
                                                                       case of Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL against Région
                                                                       Wallone on the following questions :
0 ) Article 38 ( 1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and        1 . Do Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty preclude
     Commercial Matters ( OJ No L 299 , 1972 , p . 32 ) as amended by        Member States from adopting a provision contrary to
     the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (*), as
     Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                   amended by Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March
     Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 1978 , p . 1          1991 ( 2 ), before the period for transposing the latter has
     and — as amended — p . 77 ).                                            expired ?
                                                                             Do those same Treaty Articles preclude Member States
                                                                             from adopting and bringing into force legislation which
                                                                             purports to transpose the abovementioned Directive but
                                                                             whose provisions appear to be contrary to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sala de lo Social,                     requirements of that Directive ?
Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Murcia, by order of that court
of 22 February 1996 in the case of Francisco Hernández                 2 . Is a substance referred to in Annex I to Council Directive
Vidal, SA and Prudencia Gómez Pérez, María Gómez Pérez,                      91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
                  and Contratas y Limpiezas, SL                              75/442/EEC on waste and which directly or indirectly
                           Case C-127/96 )                                   forms an integral part of an industrial production
                           ( 96/C 180/43 )
                                                                             process to be considered 'waste' within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 1 ( a ) of that Directive ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       (') OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 39 .
European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social              ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 .
( Chamber for Social Matters ), Tribunal Superior de Justicia
( High Court of Justice ), Murcia, of 22 February 19 96 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1996 ,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisco Hernandez
Vidal, SA and Prudencia Gomez Pérez, Maria Gômez Pérez,
and Contratas y Limpiezas, SL on the following
questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo
( a ) whether the work of cleaning the premises of an                  Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division — Taxation
       undertaking whose main business is not cleaning, being          matters ) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending
       in this case the production of chewing gum and sweets,          before that court between Fazenda Publica and Solisnor —
       but having a permanent need for that secondary                                          Estaleiros Naveis SA
       activity, is a 'part of a business'.
                                                                                ( Case C- 1 3 0/96 )
( b ) and whether the term ' legal transfer' may cover the                                            96/C 180/45 )
       termination of a mercantile contract for the provision
       of cleaning services, after three years, with annual
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       renewals, at the end of the third year, by decision of the
       undertaking hiring the services; and whether, if that is        European Communities by an order of the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court)
       the case, it may depend on whether the undertaking
       hiring the services carries out the cleaning using its own
                                                                       ( Second Division — Taxation matters ) of 28 February 1996 ,
       workers or using workers under a new contractual                which was received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 ,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
       arrangement .
                                                                       that court between Fazenda Publica ( National Revenue
                                                                       Authority ) and Solisnor — Estaleiros Naveis SA, on the
                                                                       following question :


title: Case C-506/09 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission
   (Case C-506/09 P)
   2010/C 63/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos, J. Gomes, P. Rocha, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant the appeal brought by the Portuguese authorities by staying the determination of this case pending delivery of judgment by the General Court, inasmuch as in the third-party proceedings it is necessary to argue not only the law but also the facts of the case;

               —

               set aside the judgment given on 23 September in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing Transnáutica's application for repayment and remission of customs debts;

               —

               order Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred when it concluded that the Portuguese customs authorities were at fault in the setting and monitoring of the comprehensive guarantee used in the transit operations at issue.
   The appellant also submits that it is impossible to establish any causal link between the errors allegedly committed by the Portuguese authorities and the later removal of the goods from customs supervision and maintains that, by concluding otherwise, the Court of First Instance has contravened European Union law.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-6/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Koblenz): Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 — Domestic legislation laying down more stringent rules — Compatibility)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-6/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Koblenz): Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (1)

   (Environment - Landfill of waste - Directive 1999/31 - Domestic legislation laying down more stringent rules - Compatibility)
   (2005/C 132/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-6/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Koblenz (Germany), made by decision of 4 December 2002, received at the Court on 8 January 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe and Land Rheinland-Pfalz — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               It is not contrary to Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste that a measure of domestic law should:

                           —

                           fix limits in respect of the acceptance of biodegradable waste for landfill lower than those fixed by the Directive, even if those limits are so low that they call for treatment by mechanical and biological processes or the incineration of such waste before it is landfilled,

                           —

                           fix earlier time-limits than those under the Directive in order to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill,

                           —

                           apply not only to biodegradable waste but also to non-biodegradable organic substances, and

                           —

                           apply not only to municipal waste but also to waste that may be disposed of as municipal waste.

               2.

               The Community-law principle of proportionality is not applicable so far as concerns more stringent protective measures of domestic law adopted by virtue of Article 176 EC and going beyond the minimum requirements laid down by a Community directive in the sphere of the environment, inasmuch as other provisions of the Treaty are not involved.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case C-322/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2014  — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/40

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2014 — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-322/14)
   2014/C 315/65
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jaouad El Majdoub

      Defendant: CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

      Question referred

   Does so-called ‘click wrapping’ fulfil the requirements for there to be a communication by electronic means within the meaning of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 44/2001? (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-667/14: Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Slovenia v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/58

      Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Slovenia v Commission
      (Case T-667/14)
      (2014/C 395/71)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by L. Bembič, legal representative of the State)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2014) 4479) (OJ L 205 of 12.7.2014, p. 62), insofar as it refers to the Republic of Slovenia, in particular as it relates to:

                              —

                              weakness in the verification of small parcels as regards conformity with the definition of agricultural parcels, for which reason a flat-rate correction of 5 % of direct payments was made in the sum of EUR 85 780,08for the financial year 2010, of EUR 115 956,46for the financial year 2011 and of EUR 131 269,23for the financial year 2012;

                              —

                              non–extrapolation of control results when the difference was less than 3 %, for which reason an ad hoc correction of direct payments was made in the sum of EUR 1 771,90for the financial year 2010, of EUR 6 376,67for the financial year 2011 and of EUR 6 506,76for the financial year 2012;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment, failure to state reasons for the decision and breach of the principle of legality with regard to the Commission’s findings as to weaknesses in checking small parcels and in defining agricultural parcels.
                  The applicant claims that the Commission erred in finding that the Slovene system allows farmers to add, in their declarations of parcels of land, the long thin strips of meadows that surround arable crops, in particular, so that the areas shown in the graphs of the parcels of agricultural land of a holding [grafične enote rabe zemljišča kmetijskega gospodarstva (GERK)] become eligible, which could give rise to inaccuracy in measurements and so to the acceptance of parcels of less than the minimum size for an agricultural parcel in accordance with Article 14(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 (1) and Article 13(9) of Regulation No 1122/2009. (2)

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging failure to state the reasons for the decision and breach of the principle of legality, with reference to the Commission’s findings relating to failure to fulfil the obligation to extrapolate.
                  According to the applicant, the Commission erred when it found that, in the Republic of Slovenia, the agricultural parcels selected for checks were chosen at random, and to the extent of at least 50 %, that the method of selecting GERKs did not make it possible to achieve representativity or reliability as required by Regulation No 1122/2009, and that there had been a breach of the obligation to extrapolate for the purpose of recital 44 in the preamble to that regulation.

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

         (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).


title: Case C-11/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht- Germany) — Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Patent law — Plant protection products — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Articles 1 and 3 — Terms ‘product’ and ‘active substances’  — Safener)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht- Germany) — Bayer CropScience AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-11/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Patent law - Plant protection products - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Articles 1 and 3 - Terms ‘product’ and ‘active substances’ - Safener))
   2014/C 282/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayer CropScience AG

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘product’ in Article 1.8 and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, and the term ‘active substances’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that those terms may cover a substance intended to be used as a safener, where that substance has a toxic, phytotoxic or plant protection action of its own.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-190/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/49

         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission
   (Case T-190/13)
   2013/C 156/91
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.J.M. Sluijs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of the obligation to state reasons.

                           —

                           In the first place the Commission allowed an unreasonably long period of time to elapse before initiating the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, as a result of which the parties were entitled to assume that the agreement at issue was not incompatible with Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In the second place there were errors and omissions in the Commission’s assessment of the facts.

                           —

                           In the third place, the Commission erred in its determination of the facts with regard to financing through State resources.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In the first place the Municipality acted as a private undertaking would have done in the same circumstances.

                           —

                           In the second place Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV together with Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV did not obtain any benefit that they would not also have obtained via the market in the ordinary course of business.

               3.

               Third plea in law, concerning Article 107(3) TFEU. Should the Municipality be found to have granted aid, this should be regarded as being compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Zootrans SNC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-606/97)

text:
C 72/20               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Autotrasporti                 Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
Silvano Zottich against the Commission of the European              Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                          Communities
                       (Case T-605/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/45)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                         the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
1997 by Autotrasporti Silvano Zottich, represented by
                                                                         was paid,
Marcello Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of
Florence and Trieste, with an address for service at the
latter's Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                   Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                    relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Pauletic Antonio
                                                                    Succ. di Pauletic Igor against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case T-607/97)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (98/C 72/47)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                                                                    1997 by Pauletic Antonio Succ. di Pauletic Igor,
                                                                    represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                                                                    address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Zootrans SNC
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-606/97)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (98/C 72/46)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                      the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
1997 by Zootrans SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich                    the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and                    was paid,


title: Case C-230/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/16

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-230/07)
   (2007/C 155/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) by failing to ensure that, to the extent technically feasible, caller location information is made available for calls to the European emergency call number ‘112’;

               —

               order that the Kingdom of the Netherlands pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/22/EC into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51).


title: Case C-16/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A — Application of goods treated as a supply for consideration — Application of a building for an activity exempt from VAT — Taxable amount for that application — Interim interest paid during the construction of the building)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-16/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A - Application of goods treated as a supply for consideration - Application of a building for an activity exempt from VAT - Taxable amount for that application - Interim interest paid during the construction of the building))
   (2015/C 205/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Property Development Company NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person has constructed, is to be the purchase price, at the time the application is made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics are similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it is irrelevant whether part of the purchase price is due to interest on borrowed capital.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-349/13: Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/38

         Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Orange Business Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-349/13)
   2013/C 252/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Orange Business Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of DG DIGIT of the European Commission, notified to the applicant on 19 April 2013, rejecting the applicant's tender and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

               —

               In the event at the time of the rendering of the judgment the Commission would have already signed the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (‘TESTA-ng’) contract, declare that this contract is null and void; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the tendering specifications, Article 89(1) and Article 100(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (1) (Article 102(1) and Article 113(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012) in particular the principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination because a) some communicated evaluation rules were not applied, b) some communicated evaluation rules were wrong and others, not communicated, evaluation rules have been applied instead, and c) the method for the technical evaluation was not communicated prior to the submitting of the tenders.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principles of transparency and equal treatment of tenderers contained in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (Article 102(1) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012), which invalidate the contested decision because it held the offer of the another tenderer regular, despite fundamental non-compliant elements in breach of the technical requirements of the Tendering Specifications.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 1997 in Case C-375/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Taxation of motor vehicles - Discrimination)

text:
20 . 12 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 387/3
final regional reference amounts for sunflower seeds                     ( Rapporteur ), Judges, A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L.
produced in Portugal — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                    judgment on 23 October 1997 in which it:
R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
and G. Hirsch, Judges, C. O. Lenz, Advocate General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             1 . declares that, by determining, for the application of
given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             the special consumer tax and the flat-rate added
                                                                              special duty, the taxable value of imported used cars
                                                                              by reducing the price of equivalent new cars by 5 %
 I . dismisses the application;                                               for each year of age of the vehicles concerned, with, as
                                                                              a rule, a maximum reduction of 20% , and by
                                                                              excluding anti-pollution technology imported used cars
2 . orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;                          from the benefit of the reduced rates of the special
                                                                              consumer tax applicable to that type of vehicle, the
3 . orders the Council of the European Union to bear its                      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      own costs .
                                                                              under Article 95 of the Treaty;
(') OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                          2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                        3 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        (') OJ C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)
                         of 23 October 1997
in    Case    C-375/95 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Taxation of motor vehicles
                                                                                of 4 November 1997
                          — Discrimination)
                             ( 97/C 387/05 )                            in Case C-337/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): Parfums Christian Dior
                                                                              SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV (')
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                        (Trade mark rights and copyright — Action brought by
                                                                        the owner of those rights to stop a reseller advertising the
                                                                                further commercialization of goods — Perfume)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                                  ( 97/C 387/06 )
In Case C-375/95 : Commission of the European                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Anna
Rokofyllou ) application for a declaration under Article 169
of the EC Treaty that, by introducing and maintaining in                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
force provisions concerning the taxation of used cars                              published in the European Court Reports)
which, first, for the purposes of calculating the basis of
assessment to the special consumer tax permit only 5 %
for each year of age to be deducted from the selling price              In Case C-337/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of equivalent new vehicles, which percentage cannot                     of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
exceed 20 % of the value of the equivalent new vehicles                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
and, second, govern the levying of the flat-rate added                  that court between Parfums Christian Dior SA and
special duty without any reduction for used cars and,                   Parfums Christian Dior BV, and Evora BV — on the
third, grant tax advantages ( reduction of the special                  interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and the third paragraph
consumer tax ) only in respect of new anti-pollution                    of Article 177 of the EC Treaty and of Articles 5 and 7 of
technology cars and not imported anti-pollution                         the First Council Directive ( 89/ 104/EC ) of 21 December
technology used cars, the Hellenic Republic has failed to               1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
fulfil its obligations under Article 95 of the EC Treaty —              relating to trade marks ( OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1 ) — the Court,
the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. C. Gulmann,                 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C.
President of Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de                    Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen,
Almeida , D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet                         Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de


title: Case C-447/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Grain Millers, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case T-430/08: Grain Millers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/18

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Grain Millers, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case T-430/08: Grain Millers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG,
   (Case C-447/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Grain Millers, Inc. (represented by: L.-E. Ström, K. Martinsson, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Grain Millers, Inc. requests that the decision of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber), case no. T-430/08, dated 9 July 2010 confirming the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (case R 478/2007-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG and Grain Millers, Inc be set aside in its entirety and that the OHIM be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings before the European Court of Justice and the General Court and that the defendants are ordered to pay the costs incurred before the OHIM Board of Appeal and the OHIM Opposition division.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The case concerns the issue of whether Grain Millers GmbH & KG has provided sufficient evidence of use of the sign GRAIN MILLERS to fulfil the conditions in Article 8 (4) of the Regulation (1) so that said sign constitutes a bar to the Appellant's CTM application no. 003650256 GRAIN MILLERS.
   The General Court has previously, in the case Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonsecal OHIM — General Optica, T-318/06 to T-321/06, paragraphs 33-35, 24 March 2009 addressed the interpretation of the purpose of the condition ‘of more than mere local significance’ found in Article 8(4) of the Regulation, namely to restrict the possibilities of conflict to those which may exist with signs which are truly significant and that this should be assessed not only from geographical dimension but also from an economical dimension of the sign's significance, which is assessed in the light of the length of time for which it has fulfilled its function in the course of trade and the degree to which it has been used. However, in the appealed decision the General Court has not adopted this approach, and there is nothing that suggests the General Court even was aware of the principles laid down in that case.
   The applicant submits that the General Court has erroneously held that Article 8(4) does not require proof of genuine use of the sign in support of the opposition as is required by Article 43(2) of the Regulation.
   The General Court has erroneously set aside previous case law regarding assessment of evidence and the requisite standard of proof.

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


Avis juridique important

|

32000Y0122(02)

Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 14 December 1999

Official Journal C 020 , 22/01/2000 P. 0001 - 0002

Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 14 December 1999(2000/C 20/02)The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following decisions at its meeting on 14 December 1999:Assignment of Judge La PergolaMr La Pergola is assigned to the Fourth and Fifth Chambers.Composition of the Fourth and Fifth Chambers1. The composition of the Fourth and Fifth Chambers for the period from 15 December 1999 to 6 October 2000 has been determined as follows:Fourth ChamberMr Edward, President of the Chamber,Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola and Ragnemalm, Judges.Fifth ChamberMr Edward, President of the Chamber,Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola, Ragnemalm, Jann, Sevón and Wathelet, Judges.2. The Court has consequently decided to make the following modifications to points 2 and 3 of its decision concerning the composition of Chambers adopted at its meeting on 6 October 1999(1):"2. For each case assigned to them, the Third and Fourth Chambers (to each of which four Judges are attached) shall be composed of the President of the Chamber, the Judge-Rapporteur and a third Judge designated in the order set out in a list which corresponds to the order of seniority. At each general meeting the starting-point on that list shall be moved down one name.3. For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, that is to say, the Fifth and Sixth Chambers (to each of which seven Judges are attached), a list shall be drawn up for the judicial year. That list shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, apart from the President, in the following order:(a) first, the Judges of the small Chamber composed of four Judges, in order of seniority;(b) second, the Judges of the other small Chamber; in the same order.For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:- the President,- the Judge-Rapporteur,- three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant list; the starting-point on that list shall be moved down one name at each general meeting.Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small Chamber.If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases should not be heard and determined together (whether or not they are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general meeting."3. In addition, as regards the period from 15 December 1999 to 6 October 2000, the lists on the basis of which the composition of the Fourth and Fifth Chambers is determined, as set out in point 4 of the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 6 October 1999, are amended as follows:Fourth Chamber(President: Mr Edward)Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola and Ragnemalm, Judges.Fifth Chamber(President: Mr Edward)Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola, Ragnemalm, Jann, Sevón and Wathelet, Judges.(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 1.


title: Case C-406/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 27 August 2014 — Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu v Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 27 August 2014 — Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu v Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju
   (Case C-406/14)
   (2014/C 431/18)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu

      Defendant: Minister Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

      Questions referred

               1.

            In the light of Article 25 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
                (1) is the contracting authority allowed to stipulate in the tender specifications that the economic operator is required to perform at least 25 % of the works covered by the contract using its own resources?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the application of the requirement described in that question in a procedure for the award of a public contract result in an infringement of provisions of EU law which justifies the necessity to make a financial correction pursuant to Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.


title: Case C-417/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014  — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission (Appeals — EAGGF — Setting-aside of land — Remote-sensing controls — Green cover of parcels set aside — Financial corrections)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Kingdom of Denmark v European Commission
   (Case C-417/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - EAGGF - Setting-aside of land - Remote-sensing controls - Green cover of parcels set aside - Financial corrections))
   (2014/C 462/02)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Pinborg and P. Biering, advokaterne)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent, assisted by T. Ryhl, advokat)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by U. Persson, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case T-49/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Gunda Schumann against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/43
Legrand was set at 5 December 2002. According to the                     rejected those measures by making its assessment subordinate
applicant, these economic consequences and the obligation to             to that of a national court and by waiving its exclusive power
comply in good faith with the judgments of the Court of First            to control concentrations of a Community dimension.
Instance meant that the Commission was required to pay
particular attention when resuming the investigation of the
case.
                                                                         The applicant also claims that the Commission made a
                                                                         manifest error of assessment in considering that the corrective
                                                                         measures proposed were insufficient in the light of the
                                                                         allegedly inadequate industrial viability of the undertakings
In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the
                                                                         disposed of. In addition, it claims that the Commission
Commission did give effect to the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         infringed the principle of proportionality by refusing to take
First Instance in Case T-310/01. The applicant states that the
                                                                         into account the potential acquirers of the shares disposed
Commission resumed the proceedings at ‘stage I’, whereas the
                                                                         of and an alternative proposal to dispose of a significant
Court of First Instance had held that its examination should be
                                                                         shareholding. Last, the applicant claims that the Commission
recommenced at the stage at which the Commission had
                                                                         infringed Regulation No 4064/89 by refusing to analyse the
committed its procedural error, i.e. at the time of communicat-
                                                                         applicant’s undertakings as to conduct.
ing the statement of objections.
                                                                         Last, the applicant claims that the decision to close the
Second, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             proceedings is vitiated by an error of law, since it has no legal
its rights of defence. It maintains that the Commission did not          basis in Regulation No 4064/89 or in any other principle of
communicate the objections which it intended to use against              law. In that regard, the applicant also relies on an infringement
it within the prescribed period and with the clarity which               of the principle of collegiality of the Commission.
would give it the proper opportunity to submit corrective
measures. The applicant further states that the Commission
refused to grant any access to the results of the market studies
                                                                         (1 ) Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand.
which it carried out for the purpose of evaluating the scope of          (2 ) Initiation of proceedings and abandonment of the planned
the corrective measures proposed by the applicant.                            concentration (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) (Text
                                                                              with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 C 29, p. 5).
                                                                         (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89/EEC of 21 December 1989
                                                                              on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
Third, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement               L 395, p. 1).
of the principle of good administration, in that the Commission
distorted the corrective measures in the questionnaire drawn
up for the purpose of the market studies and did not take into
account certain factual matters which qualified the results.
Fourth, the applicant relies on a number of errors of law and
of manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the
Commission ignored the consequences of its decisions by
                                                                         Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Gunda Schumann
stating that serious doubts still existed concerning the compati-
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
bility of the operation with the common market. According to
the applicant, the Commission therefore failed, contrary to the
second paragraph of Regulation No 4064/89 (3) and to the
judgment of the Court of First Instance, to adopt a definitive                                      (Case T-49/03)
position. Furthermore, the Commission is also alleged to have
applied a stricter standard of proof to the facts in issue than
that laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 4064/89.                                           (2003/C 101/77)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant further claims that the Commission at no time
approached the level of proof required to demonstrate the
effects of a conglomerate of this type.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Last, the applicant states that the Commission made errors of            European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Gunda
law and errors of assessment when analysing the corrective               Schumann, resident in Berlin, represented by I. Bock, lawyer,
measures proposed by the applicant. Thus, the Commission                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          26.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Benelux N.V., whose registered office is at Wijnegem (Belgium),
                                                                           represented by Jean-François Bellis, Peter L’Ecluse and Martin
—     annul the decision of 4 June 2002 whereby the selection              Favart, lawyers.
      board in Competition COM/A/11/01 eliminated the
      applicant at the conclusion of the preliminary tests and
      did not admit her to the following tests, and also annul
      the decision of 19 July 2002 whereby the same selection              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      board confirmed its first decision after re-examination;
      and                                                                  —     substantially reduce the fine imposed on Gyproc by the
                                                                                decision of the Commission of 27 November 2002 in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     Case COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard relating to a
                                                                                proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant took part in the preliminary tests of Open
Competition COM/A/11/01. By the decision of the selection
board of 4 June 2002, the applicant was informed that she
had not attained the minimum number of points required and                 Pleas in law and main arguments
could therefore not be admitted to the further tests in the
competition. In the annex to the decision, it was explained
that one question of the test had been annulled, and that                  The decision which is the subject-matter of this application
therefore only 39 answers had been taken into consideration                concerns an arrangement between BPB, Gebrüder Knauf
in evaluating the tests.                                                   Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and the
                                                                           applicant on the plasterboard market. The applicant does not
                                                                           deny the existence of certain practices which the Commission
The applicant argues that the two decisions against which her
                                                                           held to be infringements. It never the less drew the defendant’s
action is brought infringe the principle of proportionality,
                                                                           attention to the fact that the scope of the complaints against it
inasmuch as it was not necessary, in order to ensure equality              should significantly reduce over time, space and intensity.
of treatment between candidates and an objective assessment
of the aptitudes of all the participants in the competition,
retrospectively to annul a question of the test in all the
language versions, whereas all that was needed was to remove               In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that the
irregularities appearing in only one of them. Those decisions              Commission committed an error of assessment and infringed
were, moreover, disproportionate in that they did not take                 Article 81 of the EC Treaty by considering that it exchanged
account of the necessary balance between the general interest              data on the volume of sales on the German, United Kingdom,
and individual interests. It was the annulment of one question             French and Benelux markets between June 1996 and Nov-
and, therefore, the failure to take the effectively ‘correct’ answer       ember 1998.
into account, which caused the selection board not to admit
the applicant to the subsequent stages of the preliminary tests.
This is therefore a case of hardship, which the selection board
has not treated as such.                                                   The applicant also takes the view that the defendant committed
                                                                           an error of assessment and infringed Article 15(2) of Regu-
                                                                           lation No 17 and the guidelines on the calculation of
                                                                           fines, Article 253 of the EC Treaty and the principles of
                                                                           proportionality, equal of treatment, fairness and of the protec-
                                                                           tion of legitimate expectations:
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Gyproc Benelux                       —     by failing to take into account, first, the very small overall
 N.V. against Commission of the European Communities                             size of the of the applicant and the ‘one-item’ nature of
                                                                                its business and, secondly, the absence of any illegal
                          (Case T-50/03)                                         conduct on the part of the applicant on the UK market,
                                                                                or on the French or Benelux markets between June 1996
                                                                                and April 1998.
                         (2003/C 101/78)
                                                                           —     by failing to take account, as mitigating circumstances,
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                first, of the role as ‘follower’ of the applicant and,
                                                                                secondly, of the ceasing of the infringement by the
                                                                                applicant as soon as the Commission intervened.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Gyproc