title: Case C-55/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, interveners: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, interveners: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-55/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/40
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), by order of that Court of 31 July 1998, in the case of Ingmar GB Limited against Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc (Case C-381/98)

text:
C 397/20             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.12.98
     Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  (a) awards or grants paid by one or more contracting
     meaning that the underlying concept of aid also                           authorities for the support of research work;
     covers national rules which merely govern the
     apportionment of the costs between undertakings at
                                                                          (b) consideration paid by one or more contracting
     the various production levels which have arisen
                                                                               authorities for the supply of services comprising
     through purchasing obligations and minimum prices,
                                                                               research work;
     where the legislature's approach creates in practice a
     permanent burden for which the undertakings affected
     obtain no consideration?                                             (c) consideration paid by one or more contracting
                                                                               authorities for the supply of other services, such
                                                                               as consultancy or the organisation of conferences;
(b) In the event that the second question is answered in
     the negative in respect of Paragraph 4 of the Law on
     the supply of electricity, is Article 93(3) of the EC                (d) student grants paid by local education authorities
     Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that its restrictive                  to universities in respect of tuition for named
     effects apply not only to the benefit itself but also to                  students.
     implementing rules such as Paragraph 4 of the Law
     on the supply of electricity?
                                                                     2. What percentage or other meaning is to be given to
                                                                          the expression for the most part' in Article 1 of the
(c) In the event that questions (a) and (b) are answered in               Directives?
     the negative, is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as meaning that a quantitative restriction
     on imports Ð and/or a measure having equivalent                 3. If the expression for the most part' is defined in terms
     effect as between Member States for the purposes of                  of a percentage figure, is the calculation limited to
     the aforementioned provision Ð arises where a                        considering sources of finance for academic and
     provision of national law places undertakings under                  related purposes or should it include finance obtained
     an obligation to purchase electricity produced from                  in relation to commercial activities as well?
     renewable energy sources at minimum prices and
     requires grid operators to meet the costs entailed for
     no consideration?                                               4. Over what period should any calculation be made for
                                                                          determining whether a university is a contracting
                                                                          authority' in respect of any particular procurement,
                                                                          and how are foreseeable or future changes to be taken
                                                                          into account?
                                                                     (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  coordination of procedures for the award of public service
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                     contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 21 July 1998,            (2) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993, concerning the
in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte:                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                The University of Cambridge                              contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                     (3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                      (Case C-380/98)                                    procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199,
                                                                         9.8.1993, p. 1).
                       (98/C 397/34)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
Divisional Court, of 21 July 1998, which was received at             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a preliminary             (England and Wales), by order of that Court of 31 July
ruling in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex               1998, in the case of Ingmar GB Limited against Eaton
parte: The University of Cambridge, on the following                                     Leonard Technologies Inc
questions:
                                                                                (Case C-381/98)
1. Where Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1),                                        (98/C 397/35)
    Council Directive 93/37/EEC (2) and Council Directive
    93/36/EEC (3) (the Directives') refers to any body
    financed, for the most part, by the state, or regional          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    or local authorities, or other bodies governed by                European Communities by an order of the Court of
    public law' what monies are to be included in the                Appeal (England and Wales), of 31 July 1998, which was
    expression financed . . . by (Zone or more contracting          received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a
    authorities)'? In particular, in relation to payments to         preliminary ruling in the case of Ingmar GB Limited
    an entity such as the University of Cambridge, does              against Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc, on the following
    the expression include:                                          questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 397/21
Under English law, effect will be given to the applicable             2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
law as chosen by the parties, unless there is a public policy
reason, such as an overriding provision, for not so doing.
In such circumstances, are the provisions of Council                       (a) Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC apply
Directive 86/653/EEC (1), as implemented in the laws of                         in the circumstances of this case?
the Member States, and in particular those provisions
relating to the payment of compensation to agents on
termination of their agreements with their principals,                     (b) In particular, is the Respondent prevented from
applicable when:                                                                relying upon Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC
                                                                                where both the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment
                                                                                Regulations 1998 and the Social Security
(i)   a principal appoints an exclusive agent in United                         Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 under which
      Kingdom and Republic of Ireland for the sale of its                       those Regulations were made came into force
      products therein; and                                                     after 23 December 1984, the latest date for the
                                                                                said Directive to be given full effect in domestic
                                                                                law?
(ii) in so far as sales of the products in the United
      Kingdom are concerned, the agent carries out its                (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978, on the
      activities in the United Kingdom; and                               progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                          for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6,
                                                                          10.1.1979, p. 24).
(iii) the principal is a company incorproated in a non-EU
      State, and in particular in the State of California,
      USA and situated there; and
(iv) the express applicable law of the contract between
      the parties is that of the State of California, USA?            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof by order of 29 September 1998 in the case of
                                                                      The Polo/Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng
(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, on the                     Pratama International Freight Forwarders
    coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
    employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17).                                (Case C-383/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/37)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of 29 September 1998
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court),
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 9 October                 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Polo/
1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State             Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama
       for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry Taylor               International Freight Forwarders on the following
                        (Case C-382/98)                               question:
                          (98/C 397/36)
                                                                      On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341, 30.12.1994) also
Divisional Court, of 9 October 1998, which was received               applicable to situations in which goods of the type
at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a                       specified therein are, in the course of transit between two
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against                   countries not belonging to the European Community,
Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry          temporarily detained by the customs authorities in a
Taylor, on the following questions:                                   Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the
                                                                      request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights
                                                                      have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
                                                                      registered office in a non-member country?
1. Is a winter fuel payment made under Regulation 2(5),
     2(6) and 3(1)(b) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel
     Payment Regulations 1998 within the scope of
     Article 3 of Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?


title: Case F-91/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of  31 May 2006  — Frankin and Others v Commission (Pension — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium — Dismissal of the applicants' requests for assistance)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 May 2006 — Frankin and Others v Commission
   (Case F-91/05) (1)

   (Pension - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium - Dismissal of the applicants' requests for assistance)
   (2006/C 165/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Frankin and Others (Sorée, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the implicit refusal by the Commission to offer the applicants its assistance pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and, second, damages for losses the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of that refusal.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Case T-359/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005)


title: Case T-238/08: Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/50

         Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission v Commune de Valbonne
   (Case T-238/08)
   (2008/C 223/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agent, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commune de Valbonne
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commune de Valbonne, represented by its current mayor, to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 18 619,38 corresponding to the principal sum of EUR 14 261,29 and late-payment interest thereon of EUR 4 358,09 due from 31 May 2008;

               —

               Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in order to cover the costs the applicant was obliged to incur to recover the debt;

               —

               Order the Commune de Valbonne to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   For 1998 and 1999, the Commission concluded, with the Commune de Valbonne (municipality of Valbonne) in France, the municipality of Fermo in Italy and the European Economic Interest Group ARCHI-MED, a research and training contract relating to a mutual education project between the city of Valbonne and the province of Di Ascoli Piceno, called ‘VALASPI MM 1027’.
   The municipalities and ARCHI-MED undertook, inter alia, to supply the Commission with a final report. Since they did not supply that report following a letter of formal notice from the Commission, the Commission took the view that the contracting parties had failed to fulfil their obligations under the contract and terminated it, requesting reimbursement of part of the advances paid by the Commission, together with interest.
   Faced with ARCHI-MED's insolvency, the Commission seeks an order that the defendant pay the sums due, since the contracting parties were jointly and severally liable to perform the contract.


title: Case T-33/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Pierre Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/31

         Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Pierre Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)
   (Case T-33/08)
   (2008/C 79/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Bastos Viegas, AS (Penafiel, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, 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: Pierre Fabre Médicament, S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4) so as to dismiss the opposition lodged by Pierre Fabre and grant Community trade mark application No 2 429 249 ‘OPDREX’ (figurative) and order the opponent to pay the costs of both proceedings;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant;

               —

               Order the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant in these proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘OPDREX’ (application for registration No 2 429 249, for goods in Classes 5 and 10 and services in Class 35).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pierre Fabre Médicament, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘OPTREX’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical goods).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the opposition, in respect of certain goods in Classes 5 and 10.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it rejects the Community trade mark application in respect of ‘surgical apparatus and instruments’ in Class 10.

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


22 . 4 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of            how is the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 , to be interpreted for the
1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                   purposes of the tariff classification of the Xerox 3010 and
      Biiker GmbH &c Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus                      Xerox 3010 Editor machines described in the body of the
                          ( Case C-64/95 )                              present reference ? ( J )
                            ( 95/C 101 /11 )
                                                                        f 1 ) The Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines can transmit
                                                                              fax messages and copy at the same time , while the Xerox 3010
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Editor can also edit the images received ( enlargement or
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of                      reduction of the full image or part of it). Photocopying takes
the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) of Land Brandenburg of                    place by means of a scanner which scans the information in a
21 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                   document and stores it in the form of digital units in the
on 10 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    machine's memory, from where it can be retrieved for printing
Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Biiker GmbFl & Co KG                        in legible form on paper.
v. Flauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Cottbus on the
following questions :
1 . has Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1932/93 of
      16 July 1993 as rectified by the corrigendum published
      in the Official Journal of the European Communities (' )
      come into being with legal effect ?                                       Removal from the register of Case C-181/94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /13 )
2 . If so, are the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1932/93 also applicable to imports of sour cherries            By order of 13 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
      effected up until 20 July 1993 ?                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-181/94 : Commission of the
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative :                 European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
      (a ) were the preconditions present in 1993 for a
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
            measure for the organization of the market for sour
            cherries in 1993 ?
      ( b ) Is the minimum price system a permissible,
            appropriate measure for eliminating the
            disturbance to the market ?
      (c ) Is the minimum price system compatible with the                      Removal from the register of Case C-223/94 ( J )
            Interim Agreements of 25 February 1992 between
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/14 )
            the European Community and the Republic of
            Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and
            Slovak Federal Republic ?                                   By order of 20 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
t 1 ) OJ No L 176 , 20 . 7. 1993 , p. 29 .                              from the register of Case C-223/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v . Ireland .
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie
by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur
              der Invoerrechten en Acciinzen, Venlo
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-265/94 ( l )
                            Case C-67/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 / 15
                            ( 95/C 101/12 )
                                                                        By order of 15 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities by a decision of the                           from the register of Case C-265/94 : Commission of the
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and                   European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Excise ) of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 March 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v.
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of
Customs and Excise ), Venlo, on the following question:


title: Case T-155/16: Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/59

      Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)
      (Case T-155/16)
      (2016/C 211/73)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michael Bloss (Nürtingen, Germany), Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE’ — Application for registration No 9 569 765

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 454/2015-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, or;

                  —

                  in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-76/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — ASPLA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Exchange of individualised information — Fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Concerted bidding in response to invitations to tender — Single and continuous infringement — Extent of the infringement — Definition of the product market and the geographic market — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Principles of equal treatment and proportionality — Aggravating and attenuating circumstances — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — ASPLA v Commission
   (Case T-76/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Exchange of individualised information - Fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic area - Allocation of customers - Concerted bidding in response to invitations to tender - Single and continuous infringement - Extent of the infringement - Definition of the product market and the geographic market - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Principles of equal treatment and proportionality - Aggravating and attenuating circumstances - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover)
   2012/C 6/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and A. García Castillo, then by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. Ruixó Claramunt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 1995 in Case C-469/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste): Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA (Direct effect of provisions of the GATT and the Lomé Conventions - Internal taxation)

text:
No C 46/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17. 2 . 96
    does not qualify for exemption pursuant to                        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    Article 85 (3), it is automatically void arid such nullity        judgment on 12 December 1995 , in which it rules :
    has retroactive effect.
                                                                      1 . In order to decide whether fees payable under the
2 . A national court before which a party pleads the nullity                statutes of a cooperative association on withdrawal or
    of a clause in the statutes of an agricultural cooperative              exclusion are compatible with Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC
    on the ground that it infringes Article 85 (1 ) of the                  Treaty, the national court must consider the object of
    Treaty, and before which the cooperative seeks to rely                  the agreement providing for such fees, the effects of that
    on Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26, may continue the                 agreement and whether it affects intra- Community
    proceedings and adjudicate on the dispute if it is clear                trade, taking into account the economic context in
    that the criteria for the application of Article 85 (1) are             which the undertakings operate, the products or services
    not fulfilled, or may declare the clause void under                     covered by the agreement, the structure of the market
    Article 85 (2) if it is certain that that provision does not            concerned and the actual conditions in which it
    fulfil the conditions for application of the exception laid             functions.
    down in Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26 and does not
    qualify for exemption under Article 85 (3). Where there
    is any doubt, the national court may, if it is appropriate        2 . Fees payable under the statutes of a cooperative
    and consistent with the national rules of procedure,                    association on withdrawal or exclusion may fall within
    obtain additional information from the Commission or                    the derogation provided for in Regulation No 26 of the
    allow the parties to seek a decision from the                           Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of
     Commission .                                                           competition to production of and trade in agricultural
                                                                            products only if the agreement providing for them
(•) OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                            concerns a cooperative association belonging to a single
                                                                            Member State, does not cover prices but concerns rather
                                                                            the production or sale ofagricultural products or the use
                                                                            ofjoint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing
                                                                            of such products, and finally does not exclude
                                                                            competition or jeopardize the objectives of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 12 December 1995                             (') OJ No C 274 , 12 . 10 . 1993 .
in Case C-3 99/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zutphen ): H.G. Oude
Luttikhuis and Others v. Verenigde Cooperatieve
                  Melkindustrie Coberco BA (*)
(Competition — Statutes of dairy cooperative associations
— Fee payable on withdrawal or expulsion — Article 85 of
                the Treaty and Regulation No 26)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 46/06 )                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 December 1995
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        in Case C-469/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunale di Trieste): Amministrazione delle Finanze
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA ( J )
         published in the European Court Reports)                      (Direct effect of provisions of the GATT and the Lomé
                                                                                Conventions — Internal taxation)
In Case C-399/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                        ( 96/C 46/07 )
of the EEC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank,
Zutphen ( Zutphen District Court ), ( Holland ), for a                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between H.G. Oude Luttikhuis and Others and
Verenigde Cooperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA — on                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 the interpretation of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and                    published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 of the Council of 4 April
 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of
 and trade in agricultural products ( OJ, English Special              In Case C-469/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Edition 1959—1962, p. 129 ) — the Court, composed of                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunale di Trieste ( District
 G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.        Court, Trieste ) ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
 Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                proceedings pending before that court between
 (Presidents of Chambers ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.           Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and Chiquita
 G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and L.                   Italia SpA — on the interpretation of the General Agreement
 Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,               on Tariffs and Trade and the ACP-EEC Conventions signed
 ---pagebreak--- 17 . 2 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 46/5
at Lomé concluded between the African, Caribbean and                      14 November 1995, the operative part of which is as
Pacific States and the European Economic Community —                      follows :
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P.               1 . the application is referred to the Court of First Instance
J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O.                    of the European Communities;
Lenz, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 2.   the costs are reserved.
12 December 1995 , in which it rules:
                                                                          (') OJ No C 299, 11 . 11 . 1995 .
1 . The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does not
       contain provisions ofsuch a nature as to confer rights on
       individuals which they could rely on before national
       courts in order to challenge the application of
       conflicting national provisions . The Fourth ACP-EEC
       Convention may contain such provisions.                            Action brought on 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against the Kingdom of Spain
2 . The ACP-EEC Conventions preclude increases in                                                ( Case C-388/95 )
       internal taxation on bananas originating in the ACP                                          ( 96/C 46/09 )
       States, such as the Italian consumption tax, where those
       increases take place after 1 April 1 976 and their effect is       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
       to put those banana exports in a situation less                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       favourable than before, as regards access to their                 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented
       traditional markets and the advantages they enjoy on               by J. Devadder, Director of Administration in the Ministry
       those markets.                                                     of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Cooperation,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by maintaining Royal Decree 157/1988 and
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                               in particular Article 19 ( 1 ) ( b ) thereof, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
                       of 14 November 1995                                     of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of
 in      Case    C-281/95 :       Hedwig     Kuchlenz-Winter      v.           the European Communities in its judgment of 9 June
          Commission of the European Communities ( x )                         1992 ( J ) and its obligations under Article 5 of the
                                                                               Treaty,
  (Lack ofcompetence ofthe Court — Reference to the Court
                            of First Instance)                            — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                              ( 96/C 46/08 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           — By failing to take the measures necessary to comply with
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 Article 34 as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the
            published in the European Court Reports)                           Kingdom of Spain disregards the principle of fair
                                                                               competition, incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 5 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty.
 In Case C-281 /95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
  spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,                  — In Case C-47/90, the Court ofJustice gave a ruling on the
  represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel,                    interpretation of Article 34 of the Treaty in which it
  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                     found that the Spanish provisions did not comply with
  of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue Roger Barthel, v. Commission of                       Community law. The Court's reasoning is still
  the European Communities — application for a declaration                     completely relevant: no legislation in the field of wine
  of failure to act on the part of the Commission, in that it                   production has had any effect on the legal context in
  omitted, in breach of the Treaty, to propose amendments to                   which the judgment of the Court of Justice is set.
  the Staff Regulations of officials so as to enable the divorced
  spouse of a former official receiving the retirement pension                 The fact that the Consejo Regulador de la Ribera del
  payable in respect of her former spouse to obtain cover                   .   Duero has taken a decision similar to that of the Consejo
  under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — the Court,                        Regulador de la Rioja ( after the abovementioned
  composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                        judgment was published) runs counter to the existence
  Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                    of the internal market.
   ( Presidents    of Chambers ),       G.   F.   Mancini,    F.  A.
  Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,               0 ) Case C-47/90 Delhaize and Others v. Commission [ 1992] ECR
  C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), H.                          1-3669 .
  Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on


title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-146/97)

text:
No C 199/38                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
is liable for the loss of income which he has consequently                  residing at Beek ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
suffered and may suffer in the future, since, had he been                   Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
in possession of a quota at the time of relocating his                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
business activities, he could have transferred it to his new                62 Avenue Guillaume .
holding.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional        — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum
    levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
    ( OJ No L 139, 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 ), as amended by Commission              of Fl 120 559 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 ( OJ No L 110,                application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),
    21 . 4 . 1989 , p. 27 ).                                                     together with an amount corresponding to the damage
                                                                                sustained by the applicant in respect of tax
                                                                                disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of
                                                                                income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate
                                                                                of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of
                                                                                payment in full,
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer against
                       the European Community                               — order the Community to pay the costs .
                             ( Case T-144/97 )
                                ( 97/C 199/87 )
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                            Case T-532/ 93 .
An action against the European Community was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer, residing
 at Noordgouwe ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,                   Action brought on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers
 62 Avenue Guillaume .                                                      against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( Case T-146/97 )
 — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum                                                ( 97/C 199/ 89 )
      of Fl 118 995 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
      application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
      together with an amount corresponding to the damage
      sustained by the applicant in respect of tax                           An action against the European Community was brought
      disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
      income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate                  Communities on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers,
      of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of                    residing at Diessen (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M.
      payment in full ,                                                      Beek, of the Tilburg Bar.
 — order the Community to pay the costs .                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable in damages to the applicant,
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T-532/93 .
                                                                             — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
                                                                                by him as a result of the application of Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 and
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                                1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84,
 Action brought on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken                             inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed ) no provision
                 against the European Community                                   enabling a representative reference quantity to be
                              ( Case T-145 /97 )                                  granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an
                                  97/C 199/ 88 )                                  undertaking given in accordance with Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77, did not supply any
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                milk during the reference year selected by the Member
                                                                                State concerned,
 An action against the European Community was brought
  before the Court of First Instance of the European                         — declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income
  Communities on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken,                              amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/39
     the revenue — including inter alia income from sales                    No L 22, 24 . 1 . 1997, p. 1 ) in so far as it concerns the
     and additions to his herd — which he would in the                       applicants, and
     ordinary course of events have received from the
     quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,                — order the Council to bear the costs of this proceeding.
     during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on
     which Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 entered into force )            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and 31 March 1994 ( the date of expiry of the 1993/94
     levy period ), had he been in possession of the milk               Champion Stationery Mfg Co . Ltd and Sun Kwong Metal
     reference quantity to which he was entitled, and, on               Manufacturer Co . Ltd produce ring binder mechanisms in
     the other hand, the income which he actually received              the People's Republic of China . Both companies sell ring
     during that period,                                                binder mechanisms to a related company in the United
                                                                        States, US Ring Binder Corporation which resells them to
— declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or                the Community.
     such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion
     think fit, is payable to the applicant on the                      On 20 January 1997, the Council adopted the contested
     compensation due to him, covering the period from                  Regulation, which set the definitive anti-dumping duty on
     the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the                imports from the People's Republic of China at 39,4 per
     date of payment in full,                                           cent except for imports from World Wide Stationery
                                                                        which were subject to a definitive duty of 32,5 per cent.
— order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicants claim that, by failing to provide definitive
                                                                        disclosure, the Community institutions have denied them
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        an opportunity to be effectively heard. The adoption of a
                                                                        significantly higher duty without any prior definitive
On 18 February 1994, the applicant, who in 1982 had                     disclosure and opportunity to comment resulted,
taken a lease of a SLOM holding the SLOM undertaking                    corresponding to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice
in respect of which expired on 9 June 1984, was granted a               of the European Communities, in a denial of the
milk quota pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 (');               applicants' fundamental right to be informed of the facts
however, he was unable to use that quota until the                      and considerations on the basis of which the authority is
commencement of the 1994/95 levy period .                               minded to act. The Community Institutions have failed to
                                                                        make every effort to provide the applicants with
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993               information relevant to the defence of its interests .
    allocating a special reference quantity to certain producers of
    milk and milk products ( OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p. 8 ).        For the above reasons, the contested Regulation should be
                                                                        annuled, since the Community institutions have failed to
                                                                        comply with fundamental procedural rules in violation
                                                                        with Community law which affect its validity.
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery
Mfg Co. Ltd., Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd
and US Ring Binder Corporation against the Council of
                       the European Union                               Action brought on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling
                         ( Case T-147/97)                               against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs )
                           ( 97/C 199/90 )
                                                                                ( Case T-148/97 )
                 (Language of the case: English)                                                  ( 97/C 199/91 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
Communities on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs ) was brought
Mfg Co. Ltd, Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd                        before the Court of First Instance of the European
and US Ring Binder Corporation, represented by Richard                   Communities on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Luff, of Van Bael & Bellis, with an address for service in
                                                                         represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 , rue                  Edward Lewis with an address for service in Luxembourg
 Goethe .
                                                                         at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22 , rue Marie
                                                                         Adelaide .
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 119/97 of
      20 January 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                 — annul Decision No ADM-97-3 of the President of
      duty on imports of ring binder mechanisms originating                   the Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
      in Malaysia and the People's Republic of China ( OJ                     organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on


title: Case T-486/09: Action brought on 4 December 2009 — Poland v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/34

         Action brought on 4 December 2009 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-486/09)
   2010/C 51/66
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 (notified under document C(2009) 7044) excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far it excludes from Community financing the sum of PLN 47 152 775 spent by the paying agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision provides for a financial correction amounting to 5 % of the resources spent within the framework of the Rural Development Plan in 2005 to support agricultural activity in disadvantaged areas and agri-environmental ventures. The basis for the correction was alleged breaches relating to cross-checks in respect of observance of the principles of normal good farming practice, to the system of penalties, to reports of on-the-spot checks, and to linking the checks in respect of all commitments connected with agri-environmental measures.
   The applicant questions the existence of all the alleged breaches and advances the following pleas against the contested decision.
   First, it pleads infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 (2) and Article 31(1) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and infringement of the guidelines in document VI/5330/97 through the making of a financial correction on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law. In the applicant’s submission, none of the alleged breaches forming the basis for the financial correction occurred and the expenditure excluded from Community financing under the contested decision was effected in accordance with the Community provisions.
   Within the framework of the first plea, the applicant maintains that the reports of on-the-spot checks reflected checking in respect of all the principles of normal good farming practice, including in respect of observance of the annual limit on the spreading of organic fertilisers, in accordance with Article 28 of Regulation No 796/2004. (4) The applicant also submits that administrative cross-checks with the animal identification and registration system were not carried out only on account of the fact that that system was worthless as a basis of reference for cross-checks and therefore the carrying out of cross-checks with that system was not required under Article 68 of Regulation No 817/2004. (5) Furthermore, the system of penalties for breaches of the principles of good farming practice was fully effective, appropriate to the situation in the first year of implementation of the Rural Development Plan and even more rigorous than the system of Community penalties currently in force; it was therefore entirely consistent with Article 73 of Regulation No 817/2004. In addition, the applicant maintains in the context of the first plea that the comprehensive on-the-spot checks that were carried out were even wider in scope than required by the third paragraph of Article 69 of Regulation No 817/2004.
   Second, the applicant pleads infringement of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 and Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005, infringement of the guidelines in document VI/5330/97 and infringement of the principle of proportionality through the making of a flat-rate correction of an amount that was grossly excessive in relation to the risk of any financial loss for the Community budget. In the applicant’s submission, none of the alleged breaches forming the basis for the correction could have caused the Community financial losses, and in any event the risk of such supposed financial losses was entirely marginal and related to an amount many times lower than the sum excluded from Community financing under the contested decision.
   Third, the applicant pleads infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 296 TFEU because the reasons stated for the contested decision are inadequate. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission did not explain and did not enable the Polish authorities to ascertain the reasons for the fundamental change in the scope of the alleged breaches.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

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

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

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30; corrigendum at OJ 2004 L 231, p. 24).


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/27

         Removal from the register of Case C-153/05 (1)

   (2006/C 36/57)

      Language of the case: German

   By order of 11 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-153/05: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 143 of 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-77/13: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan
   (Case C-77/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/35
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2000 in Case T-234/95: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Meaning of aid — Criterion of the private investor — Economic unit — Amount of the aid — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 259/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 29 June 2000
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
in Case T-234/95: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-47/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
(ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Meaning of
aid — Criterion of the private investor — Economic unit —                  (Officials — Insurance against the risk of accident and of
            Amount of the aid — Misuse of powers)                          occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                           — Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on the insurance of
                                                                           officials against the risk of accident and of occupational
                          (2000/C 259/25)                                  disease — Rate of partial permanent invalidity — Res
                                                                                judicata — Action for damages)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/26)
In Case T-234/95: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH,
formerly Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH, established in Ham-
burg (Germany), represented initially by A. Löhde, Rechtsan-                                  (Language of the case: French)
walt, Hamburg, and subsequently by W. Hofer, U. Theune,
M. Luther and K. von Gierke, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, supported by the                       In Case T-47/97: Onno Plug, formerly a member of the
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: initially E. Röder, and               temporary staff of the Commission, residing at Thônex
subsequently by W.D. Plessing, M. Schütte, W. Mueller-Stöfen               (Switzerland), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Lévi, of
and W. Kirchhoff), against the Commission of the European                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities (Agents: P. Nemitz, M. Hilf and P. Hommelhoff),                the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue
supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Northern Ireland (Agent: L. Nicoll) — application for the                  G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment
annulment of Commission Decision 96/236/ECSC of                            of the Commission’s implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s
31 October 1995 concerning State aid granted by the city of                request of 22 February 1996 for the adoption of a decision
Hamburg to the ECSC steel undertaking Hamburger Stahlwer-                  under Article 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of
ke GmbH, Hamburg (OJ 1996 L 78, p. 31) — the Court                         the European Communities against the risk of accident and of
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                   occupational disease without seeking new expert medical
composed of J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-              reports and, second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair,          suffered by the applicant, amounting to a sum equivalent to
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  13 years of his salary — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
29 June 2000, in which it:                                                 Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
                                                                           P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June
1.    dismisses the action;                                                2000, in which it:
2.    orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by
      the Commission;                                                      1.    Dismisses the action;
3.    orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the United                2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs
      Kingdom, which have intervened in the dispute, to bear their               of the Commission.
      own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
(1) OJ No C 64, 2.3.1996.


title: Case C-241/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/41/EC — Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision — Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-241/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/41/EC - Activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision - Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum)
   2013/C 225/08
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, N. Yerrell and K.P. Wojcik, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10) — Imposition of a lump sum payment and a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent to the Czech Republic by the European Commission pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 January 2010 in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 250 000;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-303/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law (Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3) and 3(1)(c) — Direct discrimination on grounds of disability — Harassment related to disability — Dismissal of an employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is disabled — Included — Burden of proof)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law
   (Case C-303/06) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3) and 3(1)(c) - Direct discrimination on grounds of disability - Harassment related to disability - Dismissal of an employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is disabled - Included - Burden of proof)
   (2008/C 223/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Employment Tribunal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: S. Coleman

      Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Scope of the term ‘disability’ — Possibility of extending it to a person who is closely associated with a disabled person and has been discriminated against by reason of that association — Employee bringing up a disabled child on her own
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).

               2.

               Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3).

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case T-5/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-5/05) (1)

   (2007/C 69/59)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T -211/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Rica Foods v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Rica Foods v Commission
   (Case T -211/01) (1)

   (2006/C 22/44)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 317, 10.11.2001.


21.4.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                InformationRemoval from the Register of Case
                                                                                T-116/98 (1)
The defendant, an official in Grade A 3, contests the decision                                  (2001/C 118/116)
of the appointing authority, taken in the context of the
reorganisation of DG SANCO, to reassign him to the post of
Adviser to the Head of Unit of Directorate D (Unit D4) ‘Food                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
law and biotechnology’, despite the fact that until then he had
carried out those duties for the Director General.
                                                                         By order of 14 December 2000, the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
He explains in that regard that his appointment to the post of           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
adviser to the Director General was the result of an agreement           Case T-116/98, Compañı́a Trasmediterránea, S.A. v Com-
signed on 6 July 1993 between the applicant himself and the              mission of the European Communities.
Director General of DG Administration (formerly DG IX).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges the following
infringements:
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular
      Article 7(1), and the second and third paragraphs of
      Article 25, as well as failure to observe a number of
      general principles of law, such as the protection of                     Removal from the Register of Case T-244/99 (1)
      legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the duty to have
      regard for the welfare of officials, the principle pacta sunt                             (2001/C 118/117)
      observanda and those which require the appointing
      authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of relevant
      factors which are not vitiated by errors of fact or law.                              (Language of the case: Italian)
—     infringement of rules common to the Member States with             By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
      regard to performance of contracts.                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-244/99, Sadam Abruzzo SpA v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.10.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-205/96 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/115)                                        Removal from the Register of Case T-245/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/118)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 15 January 2001, the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Single Judge: J. Azizi), has ordered the           By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
removal from the Register of Case T-205/96, Roland Bieber                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
v European Parliament.                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-245/99, Sadam Castiglionese SpA v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.


title: Case C-551/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Deniz Sahin v Bundesminister für Inneres

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Deniz Sahin v Bundesminister für Inneres
   (Case C-551/07)
   (2008/C 64/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deniz Sahin

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Inneres
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must Articles 3(1), 6(2) and 7(1)(d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) — ‘the Directive’ — be interpreted as meaning that they also apply to family members within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Directive who arrived in the host Member State (Article 2(3) of the Directive) independently of the citizen of the Union and only became a family member or took up family life with the citizen of the Union in that Member State?

                           (b)

                           If this is so, does it also depend on whether the family member was lawfully resident in the host Member State at the moment he became a family member or took up family life? If the answer is in the affirmative, can residence be considered lawful if the family member is entitled to stay solely on the basis of his status as an asylum seeker?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Questions 1(a) and (b) is that a family member who arrived in the host Member State independently of the citizen of the Union and became a family member or took up family life with the citizen of the Union only in that Member State does not have a right of residence under the Directive if he is entitled to stay ‘merely’ on the basis of his status as an asylum seeker: irrespective of the above, do Articles 18 EC and 39 EC, respectively, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, give rise to a right to residence in circumstances in which the family member has been staying in the host Member State for nearly four years and has been married for a year to a citizen of the Union with whom he has been living for approximately three and a half years and with whom he has a 20-month-old child?

               2.

               Do Articles 9(1) and 10(1) of the Directive preclude a national provision under which family members of a citizen of the Union who are not nationals of a Member State and who, in accordance with Community law, and in particular Article 7(2) of the Directive, have a right of residence, cannot be issued with a residence card (‘Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen’) only because they are entitled (temporarily) to reside in the host Member State under that State's asylum laws?

      (1)  OJ L 158, p. 77.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA and Republica SA v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties — Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel — Europe agreement with Romania — Normal value — Dumping margin — Injury — Procedural rights of exporters)

text:
C 47/28                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Klaus
animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) — the Court of                          Wiedner and Stephen Kinsella), supported by Republic of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,                   Finland (Agents: Tuula Pynnä and David Vaughan QC) and
President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pas-                French Republic (Agents: Jean-François Dobelle, Frédérik Milli-
tor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                on and Kareen Rispal-Bellanger) — application for annulment
judgment on 1 December 1999, the operative part of which is                 of Commission Decision 97/277/EC of 20 November 1996
as follows:                                                                 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
                                                                            market (Case No IV/M.784 — Kesko/Tuko) (OJ 1997 L 110,
1. Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 are joined for the purposes of               p. 53) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
     this judgment.                                                         Extended Composition), composed of: A. Potocki, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996                     A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90              on 15 December 1999, in which it:
     laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
     maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in             1. Dismisses the action;
     foodstuffs of animal origin is annulled, in so far as it restricts the
     validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol to certain   2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of
     specified therapeutic indications for bovines and equines.                  the Commission;
3. For the rest, the applications are dismissed.                            3. Orders the Republic of Finland and the French Republic to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
4. In Case T-125/96, the applicants and Fédération Européenne de
     la Santé Animale (Fedesa), as regards its intervention, are ordered
     to bear their own costs and those of the Council. The United           (1) OJ No C 131 of 26.4.97.
     Kingdom, the Commission and Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie
     Vleeskalverensector (SKV) are ordered to bear their own costs.
5. In Case T-152/96, the Commission is ordered to bear its own
     costs and to pay one-half of the costs of the applicants and
     Fedesa, the other half to be borne by them. The Council and SKV
     are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996 and C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA and
                                                                                Republica SA v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping duties — Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 non-alloy steel — Europe agreement with Romania —
                                                                            Normal value — Dumping margin — Injury — Procedural
                                                                                rights of exporters)
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 47/48)
in Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Control of concentrations — Action for annulment —
Admissibility — Object of the proceedings — Competence
of the Commission under Article 22(3) of Regulation (EEC)                   In Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA, established
No 4064/89 — Effect on trade between Member States —                        in Roman, Romania, and Republica SA, a company incorpor-
                  Creation of a dominant position)                          ated under Romanian law, established in Bucharest, Romania,
                                                                            represented by Alfred L. Merckx, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro &
                            (2000/C 47/47)                                  Lorang, 4 Boulevard Royal, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agents: Stephan Marquardt, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                            Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
                     (Language of the case: English)                        Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Viktor Kreuschitz)
                                                                            — application for the annulment of Council Regulation
In Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy, established in Helsinki, represented             (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive
by Gerwin van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, and Sarah Beeston,               anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against                         Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic,
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/29
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the               Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Direcks Service
proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the                Station Bocholtz B.V. against the Commission of the
Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1), to the extent to                                  European Communities
which that regulation affects the applicants — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                                        (Case T-236/99)
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy,
J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                                (2000/C 47/50)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December
1999, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                         European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Direcks
                                                                        Service Station Bocholtz B.V., of Bocholtz (Netherlands),
                                                                        represented by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
(1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.98.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                             Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Garage Bernsteyn                        demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                         decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
                                ties                                         to be fair and reasonable;
                         (Case T-235/99)                                — make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
                                                                             the law.
                          (2000/C 47/49)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               T-210/99.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Garage                       (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
Bernsteyn B.V., of Berg en Terblijt (Netherlands), represented
by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
    Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
                                                                        Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the
    demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
                                                                                European Communities
    decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
    to be fair and reasonable;
                                                                                (Case T-269/99)
— make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
    the law.                                                                                (2000/C 47/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
T-210/99.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                        1999 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa
                                                                        (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña
                                                                        Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively,
                                                                        Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.