title: Case C-346/00: Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 335/37
The appellants claim that the Court should:                               Communities on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Rachel Magrill, of the Treasury Solicitor’s
—     annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July           Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Peter Roth QC, of
      2000;                                                               the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard Roosevelt.
—     declare that the appellants have locus standi to initiate
      proceedings for the partial annulment of Council Regu-
      lation No 1804/99 of 19 July 1999 (1);                              The Applicant claims that the Court should order that:
and, accordingly,
                                                                          1)     Commission Decision 2000/449/EC (1) should be
—     grant the appellants leave to rely on their previous written               annulled to the extent that it excludes expenditure of the
      submissions;                                                               UK paying agencies in the total amount of
                                                                                EUR 5 039 175,46 / £ 2 919 698,26 in respect of arable
—     grant the other parties leave to present argument on the                   crops for the financial years 1996 and 1997;
      substance of the case;
—     order the Council to bear all the costs of the proceedings          2)     the Commission should pay the costs of the United
      at first instance and of the present appeal.                               Kingdom.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments:
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in refusing to recognise that the derogation inserted
      into Article 5(3a) of Council Regulation No 2092/91 (2)
      by Regulation No 1804/99 was in the nature of a                     The United Kingdom submits that:
      decision. The derogation in issue is contrary to the spirit
      of the regulation and to the positions previously taken by
      the Community. The circumstances of its adoption                    a)     the Decision was unlawful as there was no basis for
      confirm that it serves to protect individual interests,                    concluding that expenditure was not effected in com-
      namely those of Danone, the only major company                             pliance with Community rules within the first paragraph
      concerned.                                                                 of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 729/70 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in holding that the applicants are not individually           b)     alternatively, if the system of supervision was inadequate,
      concerned, when their competitive position is under-                       the determination of the amount excluded was in breach
      mined owing to the adoption of the derogation in issue.                    of the fourth paragraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                729/70 and/or was manifestly incorrect;
(1) OJ L 222, p. 1.
(2) Regulation on organic production of agricultural products and         c)     the application of a 2 per cent flat-rate deduction for
    indications referring thereto on agricultural products and food-             1995 and 1996 breaches the principle of proportionality;
    stuffs, OJ L 198, p. 1.
                                                                          d)     the Decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural
                                                                                requirements.
Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United                         (1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
Kingdom against the Commission of the European Com-                           financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                              the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                               munities                                       Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
                            (Case C-346/00)                                   the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94,
                                                                              28.04.70, p. 13 [SE SER1 70(1) p. 218]).
                           (2000/C 335/64)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 4 February 1997 in Joined Cases C-9/95, C-23/95 and C-156/95: Kingdom of Belgium and Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the French Republic (Bananas - Common organization of the markets - Natural disaster - Import quota - Adjustment and allocation)

text:
No C 94/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 3 . 97
Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the                 quarter of 1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie ( OJ
President of the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                No L 51 , 8 . 3 . 1995 , p. 8 ) — the Court, composed of:
Puissochet ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges;            G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. E Mancini, J. C.
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                   Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 1997, in                (Presidents of Chambers), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
which it has ruled :                                                  D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
                                                                      H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
                                                                      D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
For the purposes of Articles 14a and 14c of Council                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 February 1997, in
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                    which it:
application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and                  I . dismisses the applications;
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83, 'employed'
and 'self-employed' should be understood to refer to                  2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs;
activities which are regarded as such for the purposes of
the social security legislation of the Member State in                3.   orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
whose territory those activities are pursued.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                         OJ No C 74, 25, 3 . 1995 .
                                                                          OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 4 February 1997                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Joined Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and C-156/95 : Kingdom
of Belgium and Federal Republic of Germany v.                                                 of 6 February 1997
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                  in Case C-205/96:             Commission of the European
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                 Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')
            Ireland and by the French Republic ( 1 )
                                                                      (Directive 92/42/EEC on efficiency requirements for new
(Bananas — Common organization of the markets —                       hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels —
Natural disaster — Import quota — Adjustment and                                              Non-transposition)
                              allocation)
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/04 )
                            ( 97/C 94/03 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
         (Languages of the case: Dutch and German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-205/96: Commission of the European
In Joined Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and C-156/95 : Kingdom               Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean
of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder ) and Federal Republic of              Francis Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
Germany (Agent: E. Röder) v. Commission of the                        Raymonde Foucart) — application for a declaration that,
European Communities ( Cases C-9/95 and C-156/95 —                    by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,
Agent: T. van Rijn; Case C-23/95 — Agents : D. Booß and               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
K.-D . Borchardt) supported in Cases C-9/95 , C-23/95 and             comply with Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May
C-156/95 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers
Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Braviner, assisted by D.                  fired with liquid or gaseous fuels ( OJ No L 167, 22 . 6 .
Anderson) and in Case C-156/95 by the French Republic                 1992, p. 17), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
(Agents: C. de Salins and F. Pascal — application for the             its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
annulment — in Cases C-9/95 and C-23/95, of                           Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
Commission Regulation ( EC) No 2791 /94 of 16 November                ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
1994 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity                      D. A. O. Edward, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General;
additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas in              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February
                                                                      1997, in which it:
1994 as a result of tropical storm Debbie ( OJ No L 296,
17. 11 . 1994, p. 33 ) and — in Case C-156/95, of
Commission Regulation (EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995                 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to                  period the laws, regulations and administrative
the tariff quota for imports of bananas during the first                   provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive


title: Case T-331/10: Action brought on 12 August 2010 — Yoshida Metal Industry/OHMI — Pi-Design (surface covered with black circles)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/27

         Action brought on 12 August 2010 — Yoshida Metal Industry/OHMI — Pi-Design (surface covered with black circles)
   (Case T-331/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co., Ltd (Niigata, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pi-Design AG, (Triengen, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in case R 1235/2008-1;

               —

               Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 July 2008 regarding Community trade mark application No 1371244;

               —

               Confirm the validity of Community trade mark registration No 1371244;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark representing a surface covered with black circles for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 1371244

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provisions of these Articles are applicable to the contested Community trade mark.


title: Case F-40/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission
   (Case F-40/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/72)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/2014, p. 60.


title: Case C-315/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 1 July 2010 — Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, Csn Cayman Ltd v Unifer Steel SL, BNP-Paribas (Suisse), Colepccl SA, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 1 July 2010 — Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, Csn Cayman Ltd v Unifer Steel SL, BNP-Paribas (Suisse), Colepccl SA, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI)
   (Case C-315/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/06
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, Csn Cayman Ltd

      Defendants: Unifer Steel SL, BNP-Paribas (Suisse), Colepccl SA, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the fact that the Portuguese judicial authorities have declared that they lack jurisdiction by reason of nationality to hear an action concerning a commercial claim constitute an obstacle to the connection between causes of action referred to in Articles 6(1) and [28] of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where the Portuguese court has another action pending before it, a Paulian action brought against both the debtor and the third-party transferee, in this case the transferee of a debt receivable, and the depositaries of the subject-matter of the claim assigned to the third-party transferee, the latter having their seats in Portugal, in order that they may all be bound by the res judicata decision to be given?

               2.

               In the event of a negative response, may Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be freely applied to the case?

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


title: Case T-833/14: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/45

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission
   (Case T-833/14) (1)

   (2016/C 191/59)
   Language of the case: Danish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-295/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH) v H. K.

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH) v H. K.
   (Case C-295/13)
   (2013/C 226/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rechtsanwalt H. (Insolvenzverwalter über das Vermögen der G.T. GmbH)

      Defendant: H. K.

      Questions referred

   Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b), Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(b) and Article 5(3) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (Lugano II Convention) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of the Council of the European Union of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (2) (‘Regulation 1346/2000’):

               1.

               Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after determination of an excess of company liabilities over assets?

               2.

               Do the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of the debtor for reimbursement of payments which were made after the company became insolvent or after determination of an excess of company liabilities over assets, if the managing director is not domiciled in another Member State of the European Union but in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention?

               3.

               Does the action referred to in question 1 above fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1346/2009?

               4.

               If the action referred to in question 1 above does not fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1346/2009 and/or the jurisdiction of the court in that regard does not extend to a managing director who is domiciled in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention:
               Does the case concern bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions or analogous proceedings within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention?

               5.

               If question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Does the court of the Member State in which the debtor has its registered office have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention, in relation to an action of the kind referred to in question 1 above?

                                       (i)

                                       With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Lugano II Convention?

                                       (ii)

                                       With regard to that action, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to a contract for services within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of the Lugano II Convention?

                           (b)

                           In relation to the action referred to in question 1 above, is the defendant being sued in a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Lugano II Convention?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 147, p.5.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 160, p.1.


title: Case T-80/10: Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden (Representation of a watch)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/57

         Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden (Representation of a watch)
   (Case T-80/10)
   2010/C 113/88
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bell & Ross BV (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Guerlain, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klockgrossisten i Norden (Väsby, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 9 September 2009 in Case R 1285/2008-3 notified on 16 December 2009 to the representatives of the company BELL & ROSS BV on grounds of:

                           —

                           infringement of Article 91 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs;

                           —

                           infringement of Articles 57 and 63 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

                           —

                           infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs.

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: No 342 951 (watches)

      Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klockgrossisten i Norden

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community design declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 6, 57, 63 and 91 of Council Regulation No (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.


title: Case T-290/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/7

         Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE)
   (Case T-290/09)
   2009/C 244/12
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 402/2008-4; and

               —

               Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE’, for services in class 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-517/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht by order of that court of 20 October 1999 in the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co

text:
C 79/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-                          Regulation No 259/93 of waste to be transported for an
tentgericht by order of that court of 20 October 1999 in                     intended recovery operation under Annex II B to Directive
            the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co                               75/442/EEC (2) and, in the event that the classification is
                                                                             incorrect, prohibit the transport of such waste?
                         (Case C-517/99)
                                                                         2. In the reasoned objection to the transport of waste on the
                          (2000/C 79/29)                                     ground that the planned transport is not for purposes of
                                                                             recovery but for disposal, contrary to the classification
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       indicated by the notifier in the accompanying notification,
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                     may the competent authority at the place of dispatch rely
(Federal Patents Court) of 20 October 1999, received at the                  on the matters constituting grounds for an objection under
Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling                 the fifth indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93?
in the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. on the following
question:                                                                3. Should the reply to Question 2 be in the negative:
Is Article 3(1)(d) of the First Council Directive of 21 December             On what provision of Regulation No 259/93 or other
1988 (1) to approximate the laws of the Member States relating               provisions of Community law may the competent auth-
to trade marks (89/104/EEC) to be interpreted restrictively,                 ority at the place of dispatch rely in refusing to authorise a
contrary to the wording thereof, as meaning that only signs or               transport of waste, where contrary to the information
indications which directly describe goods and services for                   given by the notifier, the transport is for purposes not of
which registration has specifically been applied, or the essential           recovery but of disposal?
characteristics or features thereof, are affected by the bar to
registration? Or is the provision to be construed as meaning
that, in addition to ‘free signs’ and generic names, signs or            4. Is any delivery of waste to a mine to be regarded,
indications which have become customary in the current                       irrespective of the actual circumstances of such delivery, as
language or in the bona fide and established practices of the                a disposal of waste within the meaning of Regulation
trade in the relevant or a similar sector as advertising slogans,            No 259/93 in conjunction with Annex II A (D 12) to
indications of quality or incitements to purchase etc., without              Directive 75/442/EEC?
directly describing the specific characteristics of the goods or
services for which registration has been applied, may likewise           5. If Question 4 is answered in the negative:
not be registered?
                                                                             According to what criteria is classification under the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p.1.                                                       operations listed in Annex II to Directive 75/442 to be
                                                                             carried out?
                                                                         (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 16 December 1999 in
the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG against Federal
     Minister for the Environment, Youth and Family
                           (Case C-6/00)
                          (2000/C 79/30)                                 Action brought on 13 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Supreme Administrative Court) of 16 December 1999,                                            (Case C-10/00)
received at the Court Registry on 11 January 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG                                         (2000/C 79/31)
against Federal Minister for the Environment, Youth and
Family on the following questions:
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
1. Is the competent authority at the place of dispatch under             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 January
    Council Regulation No 259/93 (1) on supervision and                  2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the            represented by Enrico Traversa and Hans Hartvig, Legal
    European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) competent to                 Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    verify the correctness of the classification by the notifier as      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    waste for recovery under the fifth indent of Article 6(5) of         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 March 2012 in Case E-7/11 — Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili v the Icelandic Medicines Agency (Lyfjastofnun) (Directive 2001/83/EC — Free movement of goods — Pharmaceuticals — Parallel import — Control reports — Protection of public health — Justification — Language requirements for labelling and package leaflets)

text:
               11.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 307/24

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 30 March 2012
   in Case E-7/11
   Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili v the Icelandic Medicines Agency (Lyfjastofnun)
   (Directive 2001/83/EC — Free movement of goods — Pharmaceuticals — Parallel import — Control reports — Protection of public health — Justification — Language requirements for labelling and package leaflets)
   2012/C 307/10
   In Case E-7/11 Grund, elli- og hjúkrunarheimili v the Icelandic Medicines Agency (Lyfjastofnun) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 30 March 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The national authorities may make importation by a health care institution, such as the Plaintiff, for use by the people in the care of the institution, of medicinal products from Norway which have been granted national marketing authorisation in Norway, and which are identical or essentially similar to products which have national marketing authorisation in Iceland, subject to a parallel import licence.
               Such a licence must be issued under a procedure limited to controlling that the medicinal products in question have a valid marketing authorisation in the EEA State of export, and that the product is identical or essentially similar to products having marketing authorisation in the EEA State of importation.
               In this context, the national authorities may not require parallel importers, such as the Plaintiff, to submit manufacturing control reports. Such a practice cannot be justified under Article 13 EEA.

               2.

               When a medicinal product is not intended to be delivered directly to the patient, the competent authorities’ right to grant exemptions under Article 63(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC is limited by the general principles of EEA law. The discretion must not be exercised in a disproportionate, arbitrary or abusive, in particular protectionist, manner.


title: Case C-29/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2009 by Daniela Marinova against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 05 November 2008 in Case T-213/08: Marinova/Université Libre de Bruxelles and Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/24

         Appeal brought on 21 January 2009 by Daniela Marinova against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 05 November 2008 in Case T-213/08: Marinova/Université Libre de Bruxelles and Commission
   (Case C-29/09 P)
   2009/C 267/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Daniela Marinova (represented by: G. Georgiev, advocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Commission of the European Communities
   By order of 1 July 2009 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-725/14: Action brought on 14 October 2014 — Aalberts Industries v Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/43

         Action brought on 14 October 2014 — Aalberts Industries v Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case T-725/14)
   (2014/C 431/67)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. Tuurenhout, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Union represented by the Court of Justice or the European Commission to compensate the damage suffered by Aalberts as a result of the infringement of its rights, consisting of EUR 1 0 41  863 of material damage and EUR 5 0 40  000 of non-material damage or an amount to be fixed by the General Court on an equitable basis, to be increased by compensatory interest from 13 January 2010 until delivery of the present judgment, at the rate fixed by the ECB for main refinancing operations, applicable during the period in question, increased by two percentage points or at a rate fixed by the General Court on an equitable basis;

               —

               order the European Union represented by the Court of Justice or the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the General Court infringed its right to have its case dealt with within a reasonable time in the action in Case T-385/06 Aalberts Industries N.V. and Others v Commission, which the applicant brought against Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings).
   The applicant states that the procedure lasted 4 years and 3 months whereas it should not have taken the General Court more than three years to deal with its action in view of all the circumstances of the case. The applicant asserts that the General Court acted contrary to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which requires the European Union Courts to adjudicate on cases before them within a reasonable time, and Article 6(1) of the ECHR, which confers on individuals the right have their case dealt with within a reasonable time.
   The applicant has suffered actual and certain damage as a result of the fact that the General Court did not dispose of the action within a period of 3 years. That damage consists of the costs that the applicant had to incur for the refinancing of a bank guarantee once the action had taken longer than 3 years to be dealt with.
   The applicant has suffered non-material damage given that the image of it as a cartel offender has persisted for an unreasonably long period of time as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure before the General Court. The applicant is of the view that compensation in an amount of 5 % of the fine initially imposed is in line with the compensation deemed appropriate by the Court of Justice in comparable situations of time-limits having been seriously exceeded in the assessment of cartel fines.
   The applicant states, in the light of the foregoing, that there is a direct causal link between the damage claimed and a rule of law infringed by the European Union intended to confer rights on individuals. The applicant is therefore of the view that the conditions establishing non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union have been satisfied for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case T-463/09: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2011 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (Form of a stirrup) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of that application — No need to give judgment)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/17

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2011 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (Form of a stirrup)
   (Case T-463/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to give judgment)
   2011/C 139/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein and B. Schmidt, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: N. Fischer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2009 (Case R 1614/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to give judgment on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and half of the defendant’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-252/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Taxation of pension funds’ income — Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds — Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield — Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds — Whether comparable)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket
   (Case C-252/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of pension funds’ income - Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds - Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield - Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds - Whether comparable))
   (2016/C 287/05)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:

               —

               not precluding national legislation under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax levied at source (a withholding tax) where those dividends are paid to a non-resident pension fund and, where those dividends are paid to a resident pension fund, to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a notional yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital under the general law regime;

               —

               nevertheless precluding non-resident pension funds being prevented from taking into account any professional expenses directly linked to the receipt of dividends, where the calculation method for the tax base of resident pension funds allows them to be taken into account, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-396/10: Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/18

         Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-396/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and V. Peere, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (1) or, in any event, failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2007/2/EC expired on 14 May 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 1.


title: Case C-402/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 16 October 2009 — Ioan Tatu v Romanian State represented by the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 16 October 2009 — Ioan Tatu v Romanian State represented by the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului
   (Case C-402/09)
   2010/C 24/32
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioan Tatu

      Defendants: Romanian State, represented by the Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of OUG No 50/2008 [introducing a pollution tax for motor vehicles] (1), as subsequently amended (by OUG No 208/2008 (2) and OUG No 218/2008 (3)), contrary to the provisions of Article 90 of the EC Treaty, and do they constitute a measure which is manifestly discriminatory?

      (1)  OUG No 50/2008 introducing a pollution tax for motor vehicles, M.Of. No 237, 25.4.2008.

      (2)  OUG No 208/2008 implementing certain measures concerning the pollution tax for motor vehicles, M. Of. No 825, 8.12.2008.

      (3)  OUG No 836 amending the Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului No 50/2008 on the introduction of the pollution tax for motor vehicles, M Of. No 836, 11.12.2008.


title: Case T-285/08: Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Securvita v OHIM (Natur-Aktien-Index)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/17

         Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Securvita v OHIM (Natur-Aktien-Index)
   (Case T-285/08)
   (2008/C 247/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. van Eendenburg, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 26 May 2008 in Case R 525/2007-4 to the effect that it be ordered that the word mark ‘Natur-Aktien-Index’ be registered as a Community trade mark at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Natur-Aktien-Index’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 42 (application No 4 861 175).

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the mark applied for is not devoid of any distinctive character.

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


title: Case T-260/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/16

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-260/15)
   (2015/C 254/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Biblao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1;

               —

               annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision insofar as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the aid scheme referred to in Article 1;

               —

               annul Article 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the contested decision, insofar as it orders the recovery of the State aid established by the Commission;

               —

               in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain by Article 4(2) of the contested decision under the same terms as those established in the First and Second Decisions, and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and Others v Commission.
   The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.


title: Case C-420/04 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras against the judgment delivered on 15 July 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 between G. Gouvras and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/12

         Appeal brought on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras against the judgment delivered on 15 July 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 between G. Gouvras and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-420/04 P)
   (2004/C 284/24)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 July 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 between G. Gouvras and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras, represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03 (Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities) in so far as it rejects the claims for annulment in Case T-180/02 and those against the Commission's Decision of 30 April 2002 to restrict to 35 % the part of his remuneration transferable to Luxembourg during the period of his secondment;

               —

               give directions granting the applicant leave to amend his pleas in law and forms of order sought;

               —

               alternatively, annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 2001 in its entirety and the Commission's decision of 30 April 2002 in so far as it restricts to 35 % of his remuneration the part transferable to Luxembourg, the place of his usual posting;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of both cases.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that the Commission had provided the applicant with the information necessary to enable him to maintain his interests before agreeing to be seconded in the interest of the service. In fact, it did not inform him of the decision to fix his place of posting in Athens or of the financial consequences thereof such as the withdrawal of his right to the expatriation allowance and of his right to the payment of the costs of annual travel as well as the application to his remuneration of the correction coefficient for Greece.
   Also, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that the conditions laid down by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations were satisfied in this case. In fact, the recovery of sums paid but not due under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations presupposes a payment irregularity of which the recipient was aware or whose erroneous nature is so obvious that he could not fail to be aware of it. In the absence of express provisions in the Staff Regulations governing the fixing of the place of posting, it could not be a matter, in this case, of an irregularity, and, in any event, in the light of the Commission's own uncertainties regarding the applicant's entitlements, he cannot be presumed to have been aware of it.
   Finally, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in finding that, notwithstanding the exceptional situation of the applicant whose place of posting was changed more than 9 months after his secondment, the Commission could lawfully reject his claim made in accordance with Article 38(d) of the Staff Regulations, for the transfer, in the conditions provided for by Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, of the sums indispensable to cover the expenses which he had to meet in Luxembourg, the place of his usual posting.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 October 1997 in Case T-229/97 R: Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre (CEFS) v. Council of the European Union (Sugar - Common organization of the markets - Fixing of intervention prices - Interim measures procedure - Suspension of operation)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/15
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Heinrich Heine, v. Commission of the European                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Communities (Agents: Blanca VilaÂ Costa and Hubert van                                   of 8 October 1997
Vliet) Ð application for payment of the whole of the sum
charged for the transportation of free supplies of fruit           in Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
juice and fruit jams intended for the peoples of Armenia                 Sucre (CEFS) v. Council of the European Union
and Azerbaijan Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                (Sugar Ð Common organization of the markets Ð Fixing
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          of intervention prices Ð Interim measures procedure Ð
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                            Suspension of operation)
order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                                                (98/C 7/50)
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly                      (Language of the case: English)
     inadmissible.
                                                                   In Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                      Sucre (CEFS), established in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio García Porras,
(1) OJ C 26, 25. 1. 1997.                                          of the Salamanca Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12,
                                                                   boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
                                                                   Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Díez Parra),
                                                                   supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: James MacDonald Flett and Xavier Lewis) Ð
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              application pursuant to Articles 185 and 186 of the EC
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Treaty for suspension of the operation of Article 1 (f) of
                                                                   Council Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997
                     of 26 September 1997                          fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the derived
in Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli and others v.                    intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price
         Commission of the European Communities                    for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
                                                                   the amount of compensation for storage costs (1), in so far
(Community technological research and development
                                                                   as it affects European sugar producers or otherwise erga
policy Ð MAST III programme Ð Decision establishing
                                                                   omnes, and for all other such interim measures as the
the list of proposed actions eligible for a Community
                                                                   Court should judge necessary Ð the President of the
contribution Ð Procedure for interim relief Ð Application
                                                                   Court of First Instance has made an order on 8 October
         for suspension of operation of a measure)
                                                                   1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (98/C 7/49)
                                                                   1. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         support of the form of order sought by the Council.
In Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo           2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, researchers at the
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente
(ENEA Ð Centre for Research into New Technologies,                 3. Costs are reserved.
Energy and the Environment), established in Rome,
represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, Mariano Paolin              (1) OJ L 170, 28. 6. 1997, p. 3.
and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 39, rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for suspension of
operation, either wholly or in part, of the decision of the        Action brought on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier
Commission of 26 March 1997 establishing the main list                       against the European Court of Auditors
and the reserve list of proposed actions eligible for a                                    (Case T-170/97)
Community contribution under the MAST III programme
and, consequently, for suspension of operation of the                                        (98/C 7/51)
decision excluding the Posible programme Ð the President
of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                   (Language of the case: French)
26 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                           An action against the European Court of Auditors was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Communities on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier,
                                                                   residing in Lintgen (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-
2. The costs are reserved.                                         NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.


title: Case C-159/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2015 — Franz Lesar

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2015 — Franz Lesar
   (Case C-159/15)
   (2015/C 254/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Franz Lesar

      Defendant: Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

      Question referred

   Are Articles 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with a national provision — such as that in issue in the main proceedings — under which periods of apprenticeship and periods of employment as a contract agent with the Federal Government for which contributions to the compulsory pension insurance scheme were to be paid for the purposes of obtaining a civil servants’ pension are:

               (a)

               to be credited as pensionable periods prior to entry into service if they are completed after the 18th birthday, whereby the Federal Government in this case receives an agreed transferred contribution in accordance with the provisions of social security law for crediting these periods from the social security agency; or, alternatively

               (b)

               not to be credited as pensionable periods prior to entry into service, if they are completed before the 18th birthday, whereby there is no agreed transfer to the Federal Government for such periods if they are not credited, and the insured party is reimbursed for any contributions made to the pension insurance scheme, especially considering that, in the event that these periods are subsequently required to be credited under EU law, there would be a possible claim for the refund of the sums reimbursed by the social security organisation from the civil servant as well as the subsequent creation of an obligation on the part of the social security organisation to pay an agreed contribution to the Federal Government.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-294/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid) — Carmen Sarkatzis Herrero v Instituto Madrileño de la Salud (Imsalud) (Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity leave — Access to the career of official — Temporary servant on maternity leave who gains a permanent post after taking part in a competition — Calculation of seniority)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid) — Carmen Sarkatzis Herrero v Instituto Madrileño de la Salud (Imsalud)
   (Case C-294/04) (1)

   (Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Maternity leave - Access to the career of official - Temporary servant on maternity leave who gains a permanent post after taking part in a competition - Calculation of seniority)
   (2006/C 131/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carmen Sarkatzis Herrero

      Defendant: Instituto Madrileño de la Salud (Imsalud)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Community rules on maternity leave and equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment — Rights of women during maternity leave — Acquisition of the position of official and of the rights corresponding to that position — Temporary employee on maternity leave when she obtained her permanent post
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, precludes a national law which does not afford a woman who is on maternity leave the same rights as other successful applicants from the same recruitment competition as regards conditions for access to the career of an official by deferring the start of her career to the end of that leave, without taking account of the duration of the leave, for the purpose of calculating her seniority of service.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-321/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 3(a) — Articles 11 and 12 — Cessation of activities of an installation — Surrender of unused allowances — Period from and including 2008 to 2012 — No compensation — Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-321/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3(a) - Articles 11 and 12 - Cessation of activities of an installation - Surrender of unused allowances - Period from and including 2008 to 2012 - No compensation - Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme))
   (2017/C 144/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA

      Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the competent authority to require the surrender, without full or partial compensation, of unused allowances which have been improperly issued to an operator, as a result of the failure by the latter to comply with the obligation to inform the competent authority in due time of the cessation of the operation of an installation.
   The allowances issued after an operator has ceased the activities performed in the installation to which those allowances relate, without informing the competent authority beforehand, cannot be classified as emissions ‘allowances’ within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Regulation No 219/2009.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-98/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2007 — Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2007 — Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-98/07)
   (2007/C 95/45)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Højesteret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet
   Question referred
   Is the expression ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business ’contained in Article 19(2) 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 (1), to be interpreted as covering goods which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view both to leasing and resale upon termination of the leasing contract?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-371/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC, Directive 84/5/EEC, Directive 90/232/EEC and Directive 2009/103/EEC — Road traffic accident — Non-material damage — Compensation — National provisions establishing methods of calculation specific to road traffic accidents which are less favourable to victims than those provided for under the ordinary rules of civil liability — Compatibility with those directives)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol
   (Case C-371/12) (1)

   (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC, Directive 84/5/EEC, Directive 90/232/EEC and Directive 2009/103/EEC - Road traffic accident - Non-material damage - Compensation - National provisions establishing methods of calculation specific to road traffic accidents which are less favourable to victims than those provided for under the ordinary rules of civil liability - Compatibility with those directives)
   2014/C 85/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo

      Defendant: Unipol

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), of Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) and of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles — Determination of injuries which must be covered by insurance — National legislation providing, in the case of a road traffic accident, for compensation for psychological damage which is less than that provided for under the ordinary rules of civil liability.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Article 1(1) and (2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a specific compensation scheme for non-material damage resulting from minor physical injuries caused by road traffic accidents, limiting the compensation payable for such damage in comparison with the compensation allowed for identical damage arising from causes other than those accidents.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case C-260/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (România) lodged on 30 May 2014  — Județul Neamț v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (România) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Județul Neamț v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice
   (Case C-260/14)
   2014/C 292/19
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Județul Neamț

      Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale și Administrației Publice

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does the failure of a contracting authority, the beneficiary of a Structural Fund grant, to comply with rules concerning the award of a public contract of an estimated value lower than the threshold provided for by Article 7(a) of Directive [2004/18/EEC] (1) in connection with the award of a contract for the performance of the action covered by the grant, constitute an ‘irregularity’ (in Romanian: ‘abatere’) within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 (2) or an ‘irregularity’ (in Romanian ‘neregularitate’) within the meaning of Article [2](7) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (3)?

               2)

               In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, it should be determined whether the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that financial corrections by Member States, if applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules concerning public contracts, are administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 or whether they are administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(c) of that regulation.

               3)

               If the answer to the second question is to the effect that financial corrections by Member States are administrative penalties, it should be established whether the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty referred to in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 applies.

               4)

               In circumstances in which financial corrections have been applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules on public contracts, does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, having regard also to the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, prevent a Member State from applying financial corrections governed by an internal legislative measure which entered into force at a time after that at which it is maintained that the alleged infringement of the rules on public contracts took place?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).


title: Case T-490/08: Action brought on 17 November 2008 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/42

         Action brought on 17 November 2008 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)
   (Case T-490/08)
   (2009/C 6/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: CM Capital Markets Holding SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carbon Capital Markets Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2008 in Case R-16/2008-1, which would lead to the rejection of the contested trade mark in its entirety;

               —

               uphold the applicant's claims;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested and reject its claims.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Carbon Capital Markets Limited.
   Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS (Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)’ (Application No 4.480.349), for services in Class 36.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark ‘Capital Markets’ (Application No 3.409.281), for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42; Spanish figurative mark ‘Capital Markets’, for services in Class 36.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-15/11: Action brought on 6 January 2011 — Sina Bank v Council

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/26

         Action brought on 6 January 2011 — Sina Bank v Council
   (Case T-15/11)
   2011/C 72/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul point 8 of section B of Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010 (1) in so far as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               annul the letter-decision of the Council of 28 October 2010;

               —

               declare inapplicable point 8 of section B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               declare Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged 2010 Regulation and Decision are not met in respect to the applicant and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In consequence, the designation of the applicant is not justified.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation breaches the principle of equal treatment;

                           —

                           the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks;

                           —

                           the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of other Iranian banks included on the list, both in 2010 Regulation and Decision;

                           —

                           the applicant suffered an unequal treatment regarding the situation of ‘Daftar’ and the Mostaz’afan Foundation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the rights of defence have not been observed and the requirement of a statement of the reason of sanctions has not been satisfied since:

                           —

                           the applicant did not receive any information from the Council to assert its position except a laconic motivation of two lines, general and inaccurate;

                           —

                           despite the applicant having made detailed requests for information to the Council as regards its designation, the Council did not answer to the applicant nor to its counsels’ letters;

                           —

                           this situation makes it impossible to determine whether the measure is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error;

                           —

                           any evidence adduced against the applicant should have been communicated to it, in so far as possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as may be after the adoption of an initial decision to freeze its funds.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures violate the applicant’s right of propriety and are not proportionate contrary to the European Union principle of proportionality of a decision since:

                           —

                           there is no link between the objective pursued by the Council and the restrictive measure imposed on the applicant;

                           —

                           the Council has not identified any transaction in which the applicant would be involved;

                           —

                           it exists other, more proportionate, measures possible against the risk of the alleged Iranian ‘nuclear activities’ and the funding of those activities.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP: of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L 195, p. 39


title: Case T-168/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Grizzly Tools v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/45

         Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Grizzly Tools v Commission
   (Case T-168/16)
   (2016/C 270/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG (Großostheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Fischer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer (OJ 2016, L 33, p. 12);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Infringement of essential requirements of form
               The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in so far as its recitals are contradictory and unclear.
               Moreover, the contested decision infringes the principle that the Commission is to state the facts of the case correctly. In the fourth recital, the Commission incorrectly alleges that the applicant made reference in the EC Declaration of Conformity to the standard EN-60335-2-67-2009, which is incorrect.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC (1)

         The applicant claims that the Commission incorrectly took the view that the measure taken by Spain to prohibit the placing on the market was justified.
   In particular, the Spanish authorities and the Commission characterised the pressure washer as of dual use, capable of being used not only as a portable appliance, but also as a hand-held appliance. They therefore considered a higher level of safety to be necessary despite the pressure washer not being intended for use as a hand-held appliance and there being no reasonably foreseeable misuse within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/42/EC in its use as a hand-held pressure washer.

      (1)  Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 24).


title: Case T-198/09: Action brought on 20 May 2009 — UOP v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/19

         Action brought on 20 May 2009 — UOP v Commission
   (Case T-198/09)
   2009/C 167/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UOP Ltd (Brimsdown, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister and O. Geiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 2(2) of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)] (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision, of 16 July 2008, on the aid measure implemented by France for the Institute Français du Petrol (IFP) Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)], [notified under number C (2008) 1330] in so far as it declared, under certain conditions, the aid compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC. The applicant is a competitor of the beneficiary of the State aid and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it argues that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by mischaracterising the nature of the research and development undertaken by IFP under Annex I of the 1996 Research et Development Framework and thereby wrongly determining the weighted maximum aid intensity. The applicant bases this plea on the following grounds: the activities of Axens and Prosernat as regards processes do not qualify as research and development and the entire pre-competitive development is carried out by IFP; IFP carried out at least the part of pre-competitive development for process technology and for catalysts that involve the use of pilot plants as well as the part of pre-competitive development that falls within its patent portfolio.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by failing to have regard to operating aid granted to Axens and Prosernat, the subsidiaries of IFP. The applicant bases the plea on three grounds and claims that: direct benefits for Axens through the continued use of pilot plants as well as indirect benefits for Axens through education grants by IFP and through international research cooperation by IFP were not considered.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by concluding that the aid granted to IFP and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat, has an incentive effect.
   Fourth, it claims that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to provide adequate reasoning and/or failing to have full regard to the evidence at its disposal.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 53, p. 13


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2004 in Case T-252/03 R Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/43

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 January 2004
   in Case T-252/03 R Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim proceedings - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Admissibility - Urgency - None)
   (2004/C 94/122)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-252/03 R: Fédération nationale de l'industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (FNICGV), established in Paris (France), represented by P. Abegg, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the French Republic (agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million), against Commission of the European Communities (agents: P. Oliver and F. Lelièvre) – application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) inasmuch as it imposed on the applicant a fine of EUR 720 000 and required it to establish a bank guarantee as a condition of the non-enforcement of that fine — the President of the Court of First Instance, made an order on 21 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-45/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — HTTS and Bateni v Council

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

      Action brought on 20 January 2014 — HTTS and Bateni v Council
      (Case T-45/14)
      (2014/C 71/50)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Naser Bateni (Hamburg) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The first applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the first applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the first applicant.

            The second applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it applies to the second applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs incurred by the second applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law: Unlawfulness and inapplicability of the amended version of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU
                  In this context, the applicants submit, inter alia, that the Council altered the legal basis for their inclusion in the sanctions lists in order to be able to impose sanctions on them. The Council therefore manifestly misused its discretionary power by altering the legal basis.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the requirement to state reasons
                  In this regard, the applicants submit in essence that the Council provided insufficient grounds for their inclusion in the sanctions lists. There is a total lack of any statement of reasons for essential factors on which the Commission relies in its decision.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: Lack of a basis for the applicants’ inclusion in the sanctions lists
                  By this plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council’s statement of reasons cannot in substance justify the applicants’ renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the right to property, the right freely to conduct business, the right to respect for family life and the principle of proportionality
                  Finally, the applicants submit that their renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists infringes their right to property and to conduct business freely, as well as the second applicant’s right to respect for family life. The applicants are of the view that their inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes a disproportionate interference, is manifestly inappropriate to realise the objectives pursued by the contested legal acts and in any event goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).