title: Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-190/97)

text:
No C 199/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 Removal from the register of C-282/94 ( ')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/35 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                       By order of 17 April 1997, the President of the Court of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                      removal from the register of Case C-282/94 : French
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                          Republic v. Commission of the European Communities .
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
laid down in Article 21 of the Directive, expired without
the Portuguese Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions.
H OJNoL20, 26 . 1 . 1980 , p . 43 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 174/95 ( ] )
                                                                                97/C 199/36 )
                                                                          By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           from the register of Case C-l 74/95 ( Reference for a
                                   Belgium                                preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                          Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                             ( Case C-190/97 )
                                                                          Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                               ( 97/C 199/34 )                            against Siro Mattei .
                                                                          ( ] ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                                    Removal from the register of C-175/95 (')
Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/37 )
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                    By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-175/95 ( Reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
       with     Commission          Directives    93/72/EEC ( l ) . of     Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
       1 September 1993 and 93/101 /EC (2 ) of 11 November                 against Bruno Belli .
       1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th and
       20th time respectively Council Directive 67/548/EEC                 H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
       on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions relating to the classification,
       packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( 3 ),
       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives, and
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l 76/95 (')
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                       ( 97/C 199/38 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  from the register of Case C-l 76/95 ( Reference for a
 put forward in Case C-l 86/97: the relevant time-limits                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 expired on 1 July 1994 and 1 January 1995 respectively.                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 (') OJ No L 258 , 16 . 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .                               against Armando Scrocca .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1994 , p . 1 .
 ( 3 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                          (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case C-491/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Sites of Community importance — Tourism complex ‘Is Arenas’ )

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-491/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Sites of Community importance - Tourism complex ‘Is Arenas’)
   2010/C 209/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, Agent, and G. Aiello, lawyer)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Sites of Community importance — Site ‘Is Arenas’ — Development of a golf course.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, having regard to the tourism and property complex ‘Is Arenas’, which affects the site ‘Is Arenas’;

                           —

                           by failing to adopt, before 19 July 2006, date when the site ‘Is Arenas’ was included on the list of sites of Community importance, preservation measures which, having regard to the conservation aim of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, are suitable for the purposes of preserving the relevant ecological interest represented at national level by the proposed site of Community importance, and in particular by failing to prevent an activity likely seriously to endanger the ecological characteristics of the site; and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt, after 19 July 2006, appropriate measures to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats in respect of which that site of Community importance was designated;
                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/43 and, more specifically, with regard to the second plea in law, Article 6(2) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.


title: Case C-602/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-111/14: Unitec Bio v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-111/14: Unitec Bio v Council
   (Case C-602/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Unitec Bio SA, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-111/14, Unitec Bio SA v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance brought by the Applicant for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Argentinian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Argentina as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment considered by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant's first plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case T-357/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2006 — Chetcuti v Commission (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to tests as a member of the auxiliary staff)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/56

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2006 — Chetcuti v Commission
   (Case T-357/04) (1)

   (Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to tests as a member of the auxiliary staff)
   (2006/C 326/120)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marguerite Chetcuti (Zejtun, Malta) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Selection Board's decision of 22 June 2004 rejecting the applicant's candidature and of subsequent acts in the competition procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-411/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH, formerly Mannesmannröhren-Werke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in seamless steel tubes — Fair legal process — Anonymous evidence — Fine — Cooperation — Equal treatment)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH, formerly Mannesmannröhren-Werke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-411/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in seamless steel tubes - Fair legal process - Anonymous evidence - Fine - Cooperation - Equal treatment)
   (2007/C 56/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH, formerly Mannesmannröhren-Werke GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and H.Gading, Agents, H-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission, inasmuch as it dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case IV-1/35.860.B. — Seamless steel tubes) (OJ 1999 L 140, p. 11) — Right to a fair hearing — Misapplication of Article 81 EC — Principle of equal treatment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04; Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Neufchâteau in the criminal proceedings against Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA and Jean-Pascal Durré (Free movement of persons and services — Concept of 'worker' — Condition of a relationship of subordination — Motor vehicle — Made available to the worker by the employer — Vehicle registered abroad — Employer established in another Member State — Registration and taxation of the motor vehicle)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04; Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Neufchâteau in the criminal proceedings against Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA and Jean-Pascal Durré (1)

   (Free movement of persons and services - Concept of 'worker' - Condition of a relationship of subordination - Motor vehicle - Made available to the worker by the employer - Vehicle registered abroad - Employer established in another Member State - Registration and taxation of the motor vehicle)
   (2006/C 48/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de Police de Neufchâteau (Belgium), made by decision of 16 January 2004, received at the Court on 25 March 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Claude Nadin, Nadin-Lux SA (C-151/04) and Jean-Pascal Durré (C-152/04) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   It is contrary to Article 43 EC for the domestic legislation of one Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, to require a self-employed worker residing in that Member State to register there a company vehicle made available to him by the company for which he works, established in another Member State, when it is not intended that that vehicle should be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis and it is not, in fact, used in that manner.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-462/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Admissibility — Res judicata — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(5), first subparagraph, Article 12(3)(a) and Article 28(2)(e))

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-462/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Admissibility - Res judicata - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(5), first subparagraph, Article 12(3)(a) and Article 28(2)(e))
   (2008/C 209/03)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and R. Laires, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 12 and 28 of 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: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Maintaining in force a reduced rate of 5 % on tolls on road crossings of the river Tagus in Lisbon
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5 % applicable to road tolls for crossing the Tagus at Lisbon, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28 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: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-281/02: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2004
   in Case T-281/02: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 239/41)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-281/02: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG, established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by S. Rojahn and S. Freytag, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agent: D. Schennen) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2002 (Case R 239/2002-3) concerning the registration of the word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/91

         (2004/C 106/184)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

      OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

      OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

      OJ C 47, 21.2.2004

      OJ C 35, 7.2.2004

      OJ C 21, 24.1.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-545/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools — Interpretation and application of Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) — Right of seconded teachers to access to the same progression in status and pay as those enjoyed by their national counterparts — Exclusion of certain teachers seconded by the United Kingdom to the European Schools from access to improved pay scales and other additional payments available to their national counterparts — Incompatibility with Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1))

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 February 2012 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-545/09) (1)

   (Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools - Interpretation and application of Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) - Right of seconded teachers to access to the same progression in status and pay as those enjoyed by their national counterparts - Exclusion of certain teachers seconded by the United Kingdom to the European Schools from access to improved pay scales and other additional payments available to their national counterparts - Incompatibility with Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1))
   2012/C 80/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and J. Coppel, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (OJ 1994 L 212, p. 3) — Remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools — Exclusion, during their secondment, from the progression in pay enjoyed by teachers employed in national schools

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the last sentence of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools of 21 June 1994 must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the Member States party to that Convention to ensure that teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools enjoy, during their secondment or assignment, the same rights to career progression and retirement as those applicable to their national counterparts under the legislation of their Member State of origin;

               2.

               Declares that by excluding English and Welsh teachers assigned or seconded to the European Schools, during their assignment or secondment, from access to the higher salary scales, in particular those known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’ or ‘advanced skills teachers’ and from access to additional payments, such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’, provided for by the ‘School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document’, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has applied Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention incorrectly;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-109/97: Molkerei Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Community protection of designations of origin - Registration under a Commission Regulation of a designation for a geographical area considered by the applicants to be too large - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
5.12.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 378/17
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder of Faltz et AssocieÂs, 6,
                    of 30 September 1998                             Rue Heine, against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Knut
in Case T-121/97: Richie Ryan v. Court of Auditors of the            Simonsson) Ð application for taxation of costs made
                  European Communities (1)                           following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Action for annulment Ð System of payment for the                    11 July 1996 in Case T-271/94 Branco v. Commission
members of the Court of Auditors Ð Departure from                    [1996] ECR II-749 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
office Ð Pension Ð No increase Ð Infringement of the                 Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-
basic regulation Ð Statement of reasons Ð Legitimate                 Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
      expectations Ð Principle of non-discrimination)                made an order on 17 September 1998, the operative part
                                                                     of which is as follows:
                         (98/C 378/30)
               (Language of the case: French)                        The total amount of the recoverable costs in Case T-271/
                                                                     94 is fixed at PTE 1 316 660, including VAT.
In Case T-121/97: Richie Ryan, former member of the
Court of Auditors of the European Communities, resident              (1) OJ C 288, 15.10.1994.
in Dublin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange, against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram
and Paolo Giusta), supported by the Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and TheÂreÁse
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of the decision
of the Court of Auditors of 20 February 1997 setting the                                 of 15 September 1998
rate of the applicant's pension with effect from 1 March
                                                                      in Case T-109/97: Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and
1997 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                          Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v. Commission of the
composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
                                                                                European Communities (1)
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September                  (Community protection of designations of origin Ð
1998, in which it:                                                   Registration under a Commission Regulation of a
                                                                     designation for a geographical area considered by the
1. Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of                   applicants to be too large Ð Action for annulment Ð
    20 February 1997 setting the rate of the applicant's                                     Inadmissibility)
    pension;
                                                                                (98/C 378/32)
2. Orders the Court of Auditors to pay the costs;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                     In Case T-109/97: Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and
                                                                     Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, established in Altenburg
                                                                     (Germany), represented by Michael Loschelder and Thilo
                                                                     Klingbeil, lawyers, Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                     Goethe, supported by Freistaat Thüringen, represented by
                                                                     Georg M. Berrisch, lawyer, Hamburg, with an address for
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: JoseÂ-Luis Iglesias
                    of 17 September 1998                             Buhigues, Ulrich Wölker and Bertrand Wägenbaur),
       in Case T-271/94 (92): EugeÂnio Branco Lda v.                 supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Zimmermann         GmbH,      established  in   Falkenhain
                                                                     (Germany), represented by Philipp Lotze and Stefan Lehr,
                      (Taxation of costs)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                         (98/C 378/31)                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Foltz, 6 Rue
                                                                     Heinrich Heine, Ð application for annulment of
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/97 of 23 January
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                     1997 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation
                                                                     (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
In Case T-271/94 (92): EugeÂnio Branco Lda, established in           indications and designations of origin under the procedure
Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova             laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            (OJ L 22, 24.1.1997, p. 19), in so far as it registers the
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
protected designation of origin Altenburger Ziegenkäse'            Action brought on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis
for too large a geographical area Ð the Court of                    and Others against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A.                        Communities and the Council of the European Union
Kalageropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.                                          (Case T-137/98)
Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
15 September 1998, in which it:                                                               (98/C 378/34)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to             An action against the Commission of the European
     bear jointly and severally the costs of the Commission         Communities and the Council of the European Union was
     and the intervening party, Molkerei und Weichkäserei           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     K.-H. Zimmermann GmbH;                                         Communities on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis,
                                                                    represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri
                                                                    Thompson, Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond Buildings,
3. Orders Freistaat Thüringen to bear its own costs.                Gray's Inn, London WC1R 5BP, United Kingdom.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð make a declaration that the rejection of the applicants'
                                                                         complaint whereby the Commission and Council failed
                                                                         to take any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants
                                                                         to implement the judgment of the Court in Joined
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann et al. v.
                       (First Chamber)                                   Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a
                                                                         service-related fault for which the Commission and
                     of 12 October 1998                                  Council are liable;
in Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Ð order that the Commission and Council pay the
                                                                         applicants the individual sums set out in the Schedule
(Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                         attached to the Application at Annex 7 hereto,
Application for review of classification in grade Ð Plea of
                                                                         modified to the date of judgment; and, in the event
    inadmissibility Ð New material fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                         that no order is made in respect of the applicants'
                        (98/C 378/33)                                    liability for United Kingdom taxation on such sums;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          such further som as may represent:
                                                                         (i) the sum payable by the applicants in respect of
In Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli, an official of the
                                                                              United Kingdom taxation, the quantification of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              such sums being adjourned pending negotiation
Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari and
                                                                              between the parties and the United Kingdom tax
Brussels Bars, 205 Rue Belliard, Brussels, against the
                                                                              authorities; alternatively
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for annulment, first, of
the Commission's Decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting                   (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants are
the applicant's application for a review of his classification                liable to the United Kingdom tax authorities, the
and, second, of the Commission's Decision of 29 April                         Council and Commission being liable to indemnify
1997 rejecting the complaint against the Decision of                          the applicants in respect of any such contingent
16 October 1996 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                          liability; and
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J.
Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made            Ð order that the Council and Commission bear the costs
an order on 12 October 1998, the operative part of which                 of the proceedings.
is as follows:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.                          those raised in Case T-30/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 11.


14.9.2002              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 219/13
        Removal from the register of Case C-450/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-490/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/30)                                                       (2002/C 219/33)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 7 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-450/01: Commission of the European                register of Case C-490/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-451/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-16/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/31)                                                       (2002/C 219/34)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 26 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-451/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-16/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-453/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-17/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/32)                                                       (2002/C 219/35)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 18 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-453/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-17/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case T-536/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Huvis v Council

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/28

         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Huvis v Council
   (Case T-536/08)
   (2009/C 55/53)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Huvis Corporation (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008, maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1), insofar as it does not repeal the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant as of 29 December 2006, that is, the date on which imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Taiwan and Malaysia were subjected to provisional anti-dumping duties, which the Commission decided not to collect in its Decision No 2007/430/EC of 19 June 2007 (2);

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant, a Korean-based company, seeks partial annulment of Council Regulation No 893/2008 insofar as it does not repeal the anti-dumping duty applicable to the polyester staple fibres (PSF) manufactured by the applicant and originating in Korea as of 29 December 2006. The applicant submits that the same treatment as was applied in Commission Decision No 2007/430/EC to the PSF originating in Taiwan and Malaysia should be applied to the PSF originating in Korea. Therefore, in the applicant's view, the anti-dumping duty should be repealed as of the same date with respect to the PSF originating in Korea.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   The applicant submits that by maintaining anti-dumping measures with respect to imports of PSF originating in Korea while the imports of PSF from Malaysia and Taiwan were not subjected to anti-dumping measures the European institutions violated the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. The applicant contests the three arguments put forward by the Council to justify different treatment. The fact that the complaint in the case of PSF originating in Malaysia and Taiwan was withdrawn and no definitive finding was made by the Council cannot, in the applicant's opinion, justify the discriminatory treatment of the case of PSF originating in Korea. The applicant contests as well that the fact that the Community interest test applied in the case of PSF originating in Malaysia and Taiwan was different from the Community test applied in the case of PSF originating in Korea could justify the discriminatory treatment of the latter. The applicant further submits that, contrary to Council's findings, the fact that different conclusions regarding Community interest were reached in the investigations concerning Malaysia and Taiwan, on the one hand, and Korea, on the other hand, could neither justify the discriminatory treatment.
   The applicant further claims that the decision that termination of anti-dumping measures on imports of PSF manufactured and exported by the applicant is not justified on Community interest grounds is vitiated by fundamental contradictions and incoherencies.

      (1)  OJ L 247, p. 1.

      (2)  2007/430/EC: Commission Decision of 19 June 2007 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed (OJ L 160, p. 30).


title: Case T-260/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/34

         Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)
   (Case T-260/17)
   (2017/C 221/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN PULSE’ — Application for registration No 13 374 194

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1571/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-332/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 1999/13/EC)

text:
C 21/8                     EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 November 2003
                         of 27 November 2003
                                                                               in Case C-66/03: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-332/02: Commission of the European Communi-                                               ties v French Republic (1)
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                 Ireland (1)
                                                                               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                                                                                implement — Directive 2000/39/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                 transpose Directive 1999/13/EC)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/14)
                             (2004/C 21/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-332/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: X. Lewis) with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                 In Case C-66/03, Commission of the European Communities
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:                   (Agent: N. Yerrell), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
P. Ormond, then by C. Jackson, assisted by M. Demetriou):                      v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,              Nunes): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                  and/or communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations
with Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to                   mission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a
the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations            first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values
(OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) or, at least, by failing to inform the                    in implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
Commission of such measures, the United Kingdom of Great                       protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations              related to chemical agents at work (OJ 2000 L 142, p. 47), the
under Article 15 of that directive, the Court (Third Chamber),                 French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                  Treaty, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas,
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                  President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 Nov-                  R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ember 2003, in which it:                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2003, in
                                                                               which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
      Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
      of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                   Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list
      organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the                  of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implemen-
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                       tation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;           health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical
                                                                                agents at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive;
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                               2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case T-385/05 TO R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2010 — Portugal v Transnáutica and Commission (Interim measures — Customs union — Third-party proceedings — Judgment of the General Court — Application for stay of execution — Failure to have regard to formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2010 — Portugal v Transnáutica and Commission
   (Case T-385/05 TO R)
   (Interim measures - Customs union - Third-party proceedings - Judgment of the General Court - Application for stay of execution - Failure to have regard to formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 80/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Third party: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, A.C. Santos, J. Gomes and P. Rocha, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and D. Ortigão Ramos, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for stay of execution, in third-party proceedings, of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009Transnáutica v Commission (Case T-385/05, not published in the ECR).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-57/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission
   (Case F-57/13) (1)

   (2016/C 371/43)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3/8/2013, p. 27.


title: Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-50/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/33
— the contested regulation is not adequately reasoned in so            Second plea:
     far as the Council did not consider the applicant's
     argument based on the cooperating Thai producer's                 The Commission wrongly assumed that the criteria for
     request that the normal value for Thailand be                     remission of import duties under Article 13 of the remission
     established on the basis of the sales made by that                regulation were not fulfilled. In monitoring and supervising
     producer's related company on the Japanese market,                imports falling within the Hilton quota, the Commission
                                                                       committed serious errors, and it was solely as a result of
— infringement of the basic Regulation, by making a                    those errors that it was possible for imports to be effected, in
     comparison between the normal value and the export                the quantities now determined and over a period of two
     price which infringes Article 2.9.a(ii ) of that                  years, on the basis of the submission of falsified certificates
     Regulation.                                                       of authenticity. In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                       misjudged the extend of its misconduct and the legal
                                                                       consequences arising therefrom.
                                                                       Third plea:
Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Primex Produkte
Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and                      The Commission breached essential rules of procedure, by
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of                denying Germany's representative at the meeting of experts
                  the European Communities                             of the Member States, held on 4 December 1995 , any
                                                                       opportunity to submit oral comments .
                          ( Case T-50/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/83 )                            Fourth plea:
               (Language of the case: German)                          The Commission breached the applicants' right to a fair
                                                                       hearing, since it did not grant them any direct hearing in
An action against the Commission of the European                       accordance with the law . The Commission was under an
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation to do so, despite the fact that the procedural rules
Instance of the European Communities on 12 April 1996 by               laid down by the Regulation implementing the Community
Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, of                        Customs Code did not provide for direct participation by
Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany), Gebr. Kruse                    the applicants in the proceedings before the Commission .
GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany ), and
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal                    Fifth plea:
Republic of Germany ), represented by Georg M. Berrisch,
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Lastly, the contested decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles of Messrs                     Treaty, since it is inadequately reasoned .
Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 January
     1996 in case REM 8/95 , 11 /95 and 12/95 ( COM Doc .              Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Miwon Co., Ltd
     C( 96 ) 180 final ), addressed to the Federal Republic of             against the Council of the European Communities
     Germany, in so far as it concerns the applicants,                                         ( Case T-51/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                         96/C 180/84 )
Pleas in law and man agruments:                                                       (Language of the case: English)
By the contested decision, the Commission decided that                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
import duties are not to be remitted in respect of                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
applications made by the applicants and submitted by                   Communities on 12 April 1 996 by Miwon Co . Ltd,
Germany pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation                   represented by Jean-François Bellis, of Van Bael & Bellis,
( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 . Those applications                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
related to the import of high-grade beef, known as 'Hilton             of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
quality' beef, from Argentina, in respect of which falsified
certificates of authenticity, purporting to be issued by the
Argentine authorities, had been submitted to the customs               The applicant claims that the Court should:
authorities .
                                                                       — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 81/96 of 19 January
First plea:                                                                1996 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on
                                                                           imports of monosodium glutamate originating, inter
The decision was founded on the wrong legal basis . The                    alia, in the Republic of Korea in so far as it imposes a
correct legal basis was Article 239 of the Community                       definitive anti-dumping duty on the applicant and orders
Customs Code and not Article 13 of the Regulation relating                 the collection of provisional anti-dumping duties with
to remission .                                                             respect to products exported by the applicant; and


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/7
(Finance Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in              1. The appeal is dismissed.
the proceedings pending before that court between Eurowings
Luftverkehrs AG and Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna — on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  2. Ms Gluiber is to bear her own costs.
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Presidents of Cham-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which
it has ruled:
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)          Appeal brought on 6 January 1999 by Anthony Goldstein
precludes national legislation on trade tax such as that at issue in the   against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the Court
main action.                                                               of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant
                                                                               and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                (Case C-4/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 January 1999 by Anthony
                          (First Chamber)                                  Goldstein against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant and
                       of 14 October 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities.
in Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                        By order of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber)
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the
                             munities (1)                                  costs.
       (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                           (2000/C 20/12)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                           mission against the order made on 14 September 1999 by
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt Gesell-
                                                                           schaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter
In Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                   mbH v Commission of the European Communities
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston                                              (Case C-349/99 P)
Diderich — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
16 March 1999 in Case T-147/98 Gluiber v Council and                                                (2000/C 20/14)
Commission (not published in the European Court Reports),
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being the Council of the European Union and the                An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of
Commission of the European Communities — the Court (First                  the European Communities on 22 September 1999 by the
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                Commission of the European Communities against the order
D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,             made on 14 September 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98
14 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 1998 in Case C-372/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Caserta): Antonio Pontillo v. Donatab Srl (Common organisation of the markets - Raw tobacco - System of prices and premiums - Validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91)

text:
7.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 340/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference
                                                                     qualities, the production areas and the guaranteed
                   of 17 September 1998                              maximum quantities and amending Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-372/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            No 1331/90.
the Pretura Circondariale di Caserta): Antonio Pontillo v.
                       Donatab Srl (1)                               (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
(Common organisation of the markets Ð Raw tobacco Ð
System of prices and premiums Ð Validity of Council
               Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91)
                       (98/C 340/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                of 22 September 1998
                                                                     in Case C-61/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Retten i lborg): Foreningen af danske Videogram-
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     distributùrer, acting for Egmont Film A/S and Others v.
                                                                                Laserdisken (1)
In Case C-372/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di                        (Copyright and related rights Ð Videodisc rental)
Caserta (Caserta Magistrates' Court) (Italy), for a                                           (98/C 340/02)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Antonio Pontillo and Donatab Srl Ð on the                             (Language of the case: Danish)
validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91 of
13 June 1991 fixing, for the 1991 harvest, the norm and
intervention prices and the premiums granted to                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices                   published in the European Court Reports)
for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, the production
areas and the guaranteed maximum quantities and                      In Case C-61/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90 (OJ L 163 of                    of the EC Treaty from Retten i lborg (Court of First
26.6.1991, p. 13) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       Instance, lborg) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.                the proceedings pending before that court between
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                    Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributùrer, acting for
D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo,             Egmont Film A/S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for             Scanbox Danmark, Metronome Video, Polygram Records,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September                  Nordisk Film Video, Irish Video, Warner Home Video and
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         Laserdisken, supported by: Sammenslutningen af Danske
                                                                     Filminstruktùrer, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer
Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no            Electronics Denmark A/S, Videoforhandler Ove Jensen Ð
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council           on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 85 and 86 of the
Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91 of 13 June 1991 fixing, for              EC Treaty and of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
the 1991 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and               19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and


title: Case C-521/16: Order of the President of the Court of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-521/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/23)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case C-110/04 P: Order of the Court of  30 March 2006  — Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Competition — Concerted practices — Agreement between undertakings — Commission's powers of investigation)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/11

         Order of the Court of 30 March 2006 — Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-110/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Competition - Concerted practices - Agreement between undertakings - Commission's powers of investigation)
   (2006/C 178/18)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Strintzis Lines Shipping SA (represented by: A. Kalogeropoulos, K. Adamantopoulos, M. Nissen and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and T. Christoforou, Agents, assisted by G. Athanassiou, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the decision of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003, Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Commission (T-65/99) dismissing as unfounded an action for annulment of the Commission's Decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities is dismissed;

               3.

               Strintzis Lines Shipping SA is ordered to bear 90 % of the costs;

               4.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear 10 % of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case F-148/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Collée v Parliament (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — Procedure for allocating merit points in the European Parliament — Examination of comparative merits)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Collée v Parliament
   (Case F-148/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Procedure for allocating merit points in the European Parliament - Examination of comparative merits)
   (2009/C 44/119)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Laurent Collée (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and A. Lukošiūtė)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of 9 January 2006 allocating two merit points to the applicant under the 2004 promotion procedure and second, a declaration that paragraph I.3 of the ‘Instructions on the procedure for the allocation of promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 13 June 2002 is illegal.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision allocating two merit points to Mr Collée under the 2004 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007, p. 48.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-55/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC — Concept of ‘collective redundancy’ — Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-55/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC - Concept of ‘collective redundancy’ - Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies - Incomplete transposition)
   (2004/C 300/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-55/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 February 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and M. França) and Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case T-66/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/32

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-66/05)
   (2005/C 106/67)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17.02.2005 by Jörn Sack, Tervuren (Belgium), represented by U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decisions on the assessment of his remuneration from May 2004 to February 2005 due to a breach of the principle of equal treatment and reassess his remuneration for those months with due regard to that principle;

               —

               set aside the negative decision of the Director-General of the Directorate General for Administration of 26.11.2004 concerning the applicant's complaint of 21.6.2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was an official in the Legal Service of the Commission in grade A*14. Due to his special function within the Legal Service he applied for recognition as a middle manager with consequent entitlement to the increments prescribed in Articles 44(2) and 46 of the Staff Regulations and in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII thereto.
   In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the decision rejecting his complaint was formally deficient in that it was drawn up exclusively in English, although the applicant's first complaint was written in German and that it infringed Article 253 EC by not addressing the wholly individual nature of his complaint.
   The applicant further complains of an infringement of the general principle of equal treatment in the assessment and grading of his job. The applicant argues that his duties and responsibilities were on a par with those entrusted to the Head of Unit. The fact that his successor was granted higher-grade pay constituted a further infringement of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-541/09: Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese — Italy) — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Varese

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese — Italy) — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Varese
   (Case C-541/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/71
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-366/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár Kft.

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár Kft.
   (Case C-366/14)
   2014/C 351/07
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

      Defendant: Hév-Sugár Kft.

      Questions referred

               1.

               How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly?

               2.

               How should Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention (2), relating to the substantive law which is applicable in the event the contract is to be enforced, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the parties have designated the laws of several Member States as relevant to the contract and, in those circumstances, which of those is the applicable law?

      (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).

      (2)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).


title: Case F-119/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 4 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings and signed by means of a seal or other means of reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Action lodged out of time)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 4 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-119/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings and signed by means of a seal or other means of reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Action lodged out of time)
   2013/C 252/89
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for, first, compensation for the damage purportedly sustained as a result of the fact that agents of the Commission entered his official lodgings in Luanda on 14, 16 and 19 March 2002 and, second, communication to him of the copies of the photographs taken on that occasion and the destruction of all documentation relating to that event.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 71.


title: Case C-38/08 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2008 by Jörn Sack against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/11

         Appeal brought on 1 February 2008 by Jörn Sack against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-38/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Jörn Sack (represented by: U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, Rechtsanwälte)

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

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 and (while the Court of Justice will itself rule on the legal questions wrongly left open on the basis of the principle of equal treatment) allow the application in so far as the decision of the Commission on the fixing of the applicant's monthly salary for May 2004 is set aside.

               —

               in the alternative, to set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment and for that Court to give a ruling on the question of the infringement of the principle of equal treatment by reason of the failure to take the applicant to account in awarding the increment provided for in the second paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which held that appellant was not entitled, in his capacity as coordinator for all legal questions relating to the enlargement of the European Union in the relevant section of the Commission's Legal Service, to the increment for heads of unit, is based on the following grounds.
   The first plea in law: the Court of First Instance misconstrued the meaning and scope of the general principle of equal treatment under Community law and in so doing infringed that principle.
   The principle of equal treatment is enshrined both in its general form as in its particular expression as a prohibition of discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and has been recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice for a considerable period as a higher-ranking principle of Community law. The obligation to comply with the requirement of equal treatment represents, under Community law, not merely a duty imposed on each of the institutions but also a subjective right to the equal treatment of individuals affected by a measure of the institutions. Since, that principle takes priority over Community secondary law, as the Court of Justice has long recognised in the abovementioned case-law, the importance of that right as a fundamental right must be properly taken into account in the interpretation and application of Community law. The Court of Justice must also respect the principle of equal treatment in the context of the rules of procedure and the different forms of procedure.
   Throughout his arguments, the applicant relied on the principle of equal treatment at all times, and not on the Staff Regulations, and he invoked the fact that he had carried out duties that were not only equivalent to those of a head of unit, but should also be considered to be of greater value by comparison with the duties of many heads of unit in the context of the tasks involved at middle-management level. By failing in any way to undertake any comparative examination of the applicant's situation with that of other categories of official who benefited from the payment, the Court of First Instance deprived him completely of the protection against arbitrary treatment conferred on him by the fundamental rights and in so doing infringed the principle of equal treatment.
   The second plea in law: the Court of First Instance infringed the rules of legal logic
   Where arbitrary treatment among several parties is alleged, the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty can be complied with only if the court makes a finding that the comparable situation relied on does not exist or determines that the parties in that comparable situation have wrongly been given the benefit of an advantage and, accordingly, that the applicant should also not be entitled to it. If those rules of legal logic are applied, it is clear that it was necessary to examine at least one of the two following questions and to answer it in the negative in relation to the applicant, if the action was to be dismissed. First, the Court of First Instance had to rule on the question whether the duties undertaken by the officials who the Commission assimilated to heads of unit were equivalent to those undertaken by the applicant and, secondly, whether the Commission was right to award them the payment.
   Since those two questions were not the subject of any ruling, it must be presumed, if they are to be considered as having no relevance from a legal point of view, that the action would also have been dismissed if those questions had been answered in the manner proposed by the applicant in his pleadings. However, such a conclusion cannot be reached. Since the Court of First Instance did not examine the lawfulness of the inclusion by the Commission of other categories of officials to the requisite legal standard, that is to say, by giving the principle of equal treatment priority over Community secondary law, it must be assumed that such an examination would have led to the conclusion that, by extending the benefit of the payment to other categories of officials, the Commission acted lawfully. Contrary to what the Court of First Instance stated in that regard, the applicant does not seek equal treatment against the law, but equal treatment under the law.
   The third plea in law: the Court of First Instance infringed the basic principles of proper procedure
   The refusal to verify the existence of an alleged infringement of a fundamental right in any way constitutes an infringement of that right of a considerably more serious kind than an error of law relating to the question whether that right has in fact been infringed, since the party concerned is deprived of the protection afforded by the fundamental right. Only where the applicant's assertion that the fundamental right has been infringed is wholly without merit or where the facts relied on in comparing the situations plainly form no basis for the assertion, can a substantive examination of the infringement of the fundamental right be dispensed with. But that does not apply in this case. The Court of First Instance thus infringed the basis principles of proper procedure. The judgment, and its underlying reasoning, cannot be maintained for that reason.


title: Case T-28/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Mülhens v OHIM — Cara (TOSKA LEATHER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark TOSKA LEATHER — Earlier national word mark TOSCA — Relative grounds for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Mülhens v OHIM — Cara (TOSKA LEATHER)
   (Case T-28/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark TOSKA LEATHER - Earlier national word mark TOSCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 199/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Capostagno and then by O. Montalto, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Mirco Cara (Vigevano, Italy) (represented by: G. Cimolino, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2003 (Case R 10/2003-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and Mirco Cara
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-268/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta v AY

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta v AY
   (Case C-268/17)
   (2017/C 256/08)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Županijski sud u Zagrebu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta

      Defendant: AY

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA to be interpreted as meaning that the decision not to prosecute for an offence on which a European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings relates only to the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or is that provision to be understood as meaning that the cessation or discontinuation of proceedings must also concern the requested person as the suspect/accused in those proceedings?

               2.

               May a Member State refuse, pursuant to Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, to execute a European arrest warrant which has been issued when the judicial authority of the other Member State has decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings where the requested person had the status of a witness and not of a suspect/accused in the proceedings?

               3.

               Does the decision to terminate an investigation in which the requested person did not have the status of a suspect but was interviewed as a witness constitute, for the other Member States, a ground not to act on the European arrest warrant which has been issued in accordance with Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

               4.

               What is the link between the mandatory ground for refusal of surrender laid down in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, where ‘the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts’, and the optional ground for refusal of surrender laid down in Article 4(3) of the Framework Decision, where ‘a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings’?

               5.

               Is Article 1(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA to be interpreted as meaning that the executing State is required to adopt a decision on any European arrest warrant communicated to it, even where it has already taken a decision on a previous European arrest warrant issued by the other judicial authority against the same requested person in the same criminal proceedings and where the new European arrest warrant is issued because of a change in circumstances in the State issuing the European arrest warrant (decision to refer — initiation of criminal proceedings, stricter evidential criteria relating to the commission of the offence, new competent judicial authority/court)?