title: Case C-82/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 16 February 2012 — Transportes Jordi Besora, S.L. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalitat de Catalunya

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 16 February 2012 — Transportes Jordi Besora, S.L. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalitat de Catalunya
   (Case C-82/12)
   2012/C 138/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Transportes Jordi Besora, S.L.

      Defendants: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalitat de Catalunya

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it the case that Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, in particular, the requirement of a ‘specific purpose’ for a particular levy

                           (a)

                           must be interpreted as requiring that the purpose pursued is not capable of being achieved by means of another harmonised levy?

                           (b)

                           must be interpreted as meaning that there is a purely budgetary purpose when a particular levy has been established simultaneously with the transfer of certain competences to certain Autonomous Communities to which, in turn, are transferred the proceeds of the levy with the aim of covering, in part, the costs associated with the competences transferred, it being permissible to lay down rates of levy that vary as between Autonomous Communities?

                           (c)

                           If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the term ‘specific purpose’ be interpreted as meaning that the purpose must be exclusive or, on the contrary, that it permits the attainment of various differentiated aims, among which is also included the merely budgetary aim of obtaining financing for certain competences?

                           (d)

                           If the answer to the previous question is that the attainment of various aims is permitted, what degree of relevance must be displayed by a particular objective, for the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12, in order to fulfil the requirement that the levy should meet a ‘specific purpose’ in the sense accepted by the case-law of the Court of Justice and what would be the criteria for defining the principal purpose as compared with the ancillary purpose?

               2.

               Does Article 3(2) of [Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992] and, in particular, the condition of complying with the tax rules applicable to excise duties or VAT for the determination of chargeability,

                           (a)

                           preclude an indirect non-harmonised levy (such as the IVMDH) which becomes chargeable at the time of the retail sale of the fuel to the final consumer, in contrast to the harmonised levy (Impuesto sobre Hidrocarburos, which becomes chargeable when the products leave the last tax warehouse) or VAT (which, although also becoming chargeable at the time of the final retail sale, is payable at each stage of the production and distribution process), on the basis that it does not — to use the terms of the judgment in EKW and Wein & Co
                               (2) (paragraph 47) — accord with the general scheme of one or other of the abovementioned taxation techniques as structured by the Community legislation?

                           (b)

                           In the event that the foregoing question is answered in the negative, must the interpretation be that the said compliance condition is fulfilled, without the need for any coinciding of the effects of the chargeability, on account of the mere circumstance that the non-harmonised indirect levy (in this case, the IVMDH) does not disrupt — in the sense that it does not impede or render difficult — the normal functioning of the chargeability of excise duties or VAT?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

      (2)  Case C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157.


title: Case F-86/15: Action brought on 9th June 2015 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/61

         Action brought on 9th June 2015 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-86/15)
   (2015/C 279/78)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the program ‘Career transition support’ of the ECB and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Career Transition Support (CTS) Team of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s CTS application;

               —

               grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he suffered consisting of the CTS financial package, estimated at 1 01  447 euros, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points;

               —

               grant the Applicant compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered, estimated at 10  000 euros;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-218/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/13

         Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-218/08)
   (2008/C 197/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all the establishments for which those plans are required, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (2);

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Seveso II directive pursues the objective of preventing major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances and limiting their consequences for man and the environment. It is clear that the drawing up of external emergency plans is a fundamental provision of that directive: it ensures that in the case of accidents urgent measures are adopted to limit their consequences.
   Article 11 applies, by virtue of the references made in Article 9 and Article 2 of the directive, to all establishments where dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in excess of the quantities listed in Annex I, Parts 1 and 2, column 3.
   The Italian authorities confirm with data from their own sources that not all the establishments which ought to have external emergency plans have actually been provided with such plans.

      (1)  OJ L 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ L 345 of 31.12.2003, p. 97.


title: Case C-104/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria), lodged on 6 March 2008 — Marc André Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria), lodged on 6 March 2008 — Marc André Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels
   (Case C-104/08)
   (2008/C 142/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marc André Kurt

      Defendant: Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the fundamental principles of the Treaty on the establishment of the European Community and of the Treaty on Union (OJ 2006 C 321 E/1) and the freedoms arising from those treaties for an EU citizen, who in the light of his theoretical and practical education and training and his relevant professional experience acquired over many years and his qualifications is entitled, formally and in practice, to teach driving theory and practice to learner drivers and most recently also to teach driving school instructors and to establish, operate and manage a driving school in a Member State, to be denied the right to manage a driving school in his own Member State, by virtue of a requirement to hold a diploma (‘Diplomzwang’) which is laid down by statute and which cannot in practice be met?

               2.

               Is the requirement to hold a diploma arising from Paragraph 109(1)(e) KFG (Kraftfahrgesetz — Law on driving Motor Vehicles) 1967 compatible in particular with the values expressed by Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1) concerning the freedom to pursue an economic or business activity, free competition and the principle of equality of all citizens?

               3.

               Must Paragraph 109(2) KFG 1967 be interpreted as meaning that another relevant form of education or training along with the corresponding professional experience can also be recognised as ‘another equivalent academic education’?


title: Case C-92/08: Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-92/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/53

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-345/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 November 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of claim for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice — Application for interim measures — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/37

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 November 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-345/12 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of claim for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice - Application for interim measures - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 9/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB (Nacka, Sweden); and Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 3533 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB and Eka Chemicals AB pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) and application for interim measures seeking the continuation of the confidential treatment accorded to certain information relating to the applicants in respect of Commission Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding, Eka Chemicals, Degussa AG, Edison SpA, FMC Corporation, FMC Foret S.A., Kemira OYJ, L’Air Liquide SA, Chemoxal SA, Snia SpA, Caffaro Srl, Solvay SA/NV, Solvay Solexis SpA, Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (Case COMP/F/C.38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 54),

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Decision C(2012) 3533 of the European Commission of 24 May 2012 rejecting a claim for confidential treatment made by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB and Eka Chemicals AB pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate) is suspended.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to refrain from publishing a version of its Decision 2006/903/EC of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding, Eka Chemicals, Degussa AG, Edison SpA, FMC Corporation, FMC Foret S.A., Kemira OYJ, L’Air Liquide SA, Chemoxal SA, Snia SpA, Caffaro Srl, Solvay SA/NV, Solvay Solexis SpA, Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (Case COMP/F/C.38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate), which is more complete, in relation to Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding and Eka Chemicals, than that published in September 2007 on the Commission’s website.

               3.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed for the remainder.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-21/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)

text:
               19.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 18/27

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 February 2016
   in Case E-21/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)
   (2017/C 18/11)
   In Case E-21/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-828/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — CRDO Torta del Casar v EUIPO — CRDOP ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/54

         Action brought on 25 November 2016 — CRDO Torta del Casar v EUIPO — CRDOP ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)
   (Case T-828/16)
   (2017/C 022/73)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Torta del Casar (Casar de Cáceres, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’ (Castuera, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA’ — Application for registration No 10 486 447

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2573/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the contested decision, finding that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, are met;

               —

               alternatively, annul the contested decision; and

               —

               in any event, order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal).

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 2(2) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of the same regulation, and with reference, lastly, to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, with reference to Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty and sound administration.


title: Case T-488/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/42

         Action brought on 12 November 2012 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament
   (Case T-488/12)
   2013/C 9/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision by which the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Infrastructure and Logistics, on 7 September 2012, rejected the applicants’ tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer, a decision about which the applicants were informed by letters of 7 and 18 September 2012;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 89(1) and (2) and 92 of the Financial Regulation, (1) of Article 135(1) and (5) of the Implementing Regulation (2) and Article 49 of Directive 2004/18, (3) and the principles of competition, transparency, equal treatment, proportionality and diligence, in so far as the contested decision does not contain the report compiled by the evaluation committee constituting the reason for the decision, and thus does not allow the applicants to check that the tender accepted is lawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons for decisions, of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation, of the contract documents and of the provisions governing the award of that contract, detailed and adequate reasons not being stated for the contested decision in so far as it does not include the information from the evaluation committee’s report.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)

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


title: Case C-83/99: Action brought on 8 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 160/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 8 March 1999 by the Commission of                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   Tribunals, London, by decision of that court of 14 January
                                                                        1999, in the case of Freemans plc against Commissioners
                                                                                of Customs and Excise.
                          (Case C-83/99)
                                                                                (Case C-86/99)
                         (1999/C 160/07)                                                         (1999/C 160/08)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 March             Tribunals, London of 14 January 1999, which was received at
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the Court Registry on 12 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling
represented by Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser,             in the case of Freemans plc against Commissioners of Customs
and by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, acting as        and Excise, on the following questions:
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      — What, on a proper construction of Article 11A and 11C of
                                                                             the Sixth Directive (1), is the taxable amount in respect of
                                                                             goods supplied by mail order from a catalogue to a
                                                                             customer for the customer’s own use where the supplier in
                                                                             operating self-financed credit terms allows a discount from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  the catalogue price to the customer (‘AOP discount’) with
                                                                             the AOP discount being credited to the customer as and
                                                                             when instalment payments are made to the supplier (or
                                                                             use made of AOP discount in reducing or discharging an
— declare that, by applying a reduced rate to the provision of
                                                                             instalment payment) but where the AOP discount which
     services consisting in making a road infrastructure available
                                                                             has accrued on payments made is available for immediate
     to road users, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             withdrawal or use by the customer even though future
     obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                             instalment payments will be due from that customer?
     (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977,
                                                                        — Is the taxable amount:
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                             1. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
                                                                                customer less the AOP discount on that price, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              2. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
                                                                                customer with a reduction as and when the AOP
                                                                                discount is credited to a customer, or
The provision of services consisting in making a road infra-
structure available to road users is not comparable to the                   3. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
‘transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage’                         customer with a reduction as and when the AOP
under point 5 of Annex H to the Sixth Directive. The two                         discount is withdrawn or used by a customer, or
services provided are totally different: in case of transport, the
taxable person undertakes to take responsibility for persons or
goods and move them from one place to another; in the case                   4. some other and, if so what, amount.
of motorways, the concession holder makes available to the
road user a road infrastructure so that he may travel more
rapidly. The Commission cannot see on what principle of non
misinterpretation or neutrality Spain relies in order to place
such a wide construction on the terms of Annex H that its               (1) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
practical effects are totally annulled.                                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-336/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Action for annulment — Period within which action must be brought — Point from which period starts to run — Lateness — Inadmissibility — Grounds of appeal — Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2012 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-336/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Period within which action must be brought - Point from which period starts to run - Lateness - Inadmissibility - Grounds of appeal - Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection)
   2012/C 258/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and A. Szmytkowska, and by T. van Rijn, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission, by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8) — Date from which the period for bringing an action for annulment begins to run — Erroneous interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the EEC (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59) — Breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of the principles of solidarity and good faith — Procedural irregularities resulting from the Court of First Instance’s refusal to hear the pleas linked to the breach of those principles

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court rules:

               1.

               The order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2009 in Case T-258/04 Poland v Commission is set aside.

               2.

               The case is referred back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the form of order submitted by the Republic of Poland seeking annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-182/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission (Approximation of laws — Derogating national provisions — Rejection by the Commission of a draft decree advancing the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particulate matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles — Duty of care and to state reasons — Specificity of the notifying Member State's problem in complying with the Community limits on concentrations of particulate matter in ambient air)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-182/06) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Derogating national provisions - Rejection by the Commission of a draft decree advancing the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particulate matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles - Duty of care and to state reasons - Specificity of the notifying Member State's problem in complying with the Community limits on concentrations of particulate matter in ambient air)
   (2007/C 183/63)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, A. Alcover San Pedro and H. van Vliet, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


20150731038616962015/C 270/271862013TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150630222322Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission (State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2220120150630EN0027222232Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — Netherlands and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-186/13, T-190/13 and T-193/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(State aid — Sale of land — Aid granted to Schouten-de Jong Bouwfonds by a public-private partnership set up by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg — Reduction in the sale price of land and retroactive exemption from payment of the fees payable for its exploitation and quality — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of aid — Private-investor test — Assessment of all factors relevant to the transaction at issue and its context)’2015/C 270/27Language of the cases: Dutch
      Parties

      Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents) (Case T-186/13); Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.-K. Sluijs, lawyers) (Case T-190/13); Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV (Hoevelaken, Netherlands) and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV (Leidschendam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers) (Case T-193/13)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg;

            2.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg, Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV and Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case T-653/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Wahlström v Frontex (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Reports procedure — Career development report — 2010 assessment period — Annual dialogue with the reporting officer — Setting objectives)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Wahlström v Frontex
   (Case T-653/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2010 assessment period - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives))
   (2015/C 371/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143) to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the second and third parts of the second ground for annulment relied on at first instance and the claim for compensation;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

               3.

               Annuls the assessment report for the year 2010 of Mr Kari Wahlström;

               4.

               Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to pay EUR 2  000 to Mr Wahlström by way of compensation;

               5.

               Orders Frontex to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2003 in Case C-156/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final — Remission of import duties — Inward processing — Lack of equivalence between Community products and imported products)

text:
10.5.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 112/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Denmark concerning the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates
                                                                                in foodstuffs in so far as it rejects those national provisions
                                                                                relating to the use of nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs;
                         of 20 March 2003
                                                                             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
in Case C-3/00: Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of                           3.    Orders the parties to pay their own costs;
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                             4.    Orders the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway to
(Approximation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Use of                                pay their own costs.
sulphites, nitrites and nitrates as food additives — Protection
of health — Stricter national provisions — Conditions of                     (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
application of Article 95(4) EC — Principle of the right to
                              be heard)
                          (2003/C 112/01)
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-156/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
In Case C-3/00, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde)                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
supported by Republic of Iceland (Agent: H. S. Kristjánsson)
and Kingdom of Norway (Agent: B. B. Ekeberg) v Commission                    (Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Shotter and                          485 final — Remission of import duties — Inward pro-
H. C. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of Commission                 cessing — Lack of equivalence between Community products
Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national                                             and imported products)
provisions notified by the Kingdom of Denmark concerning
the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs (OJ 1999                                      (2003/C 112/02)
L 329, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                                         in the European Court Reports)
given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October                   In Case C-156/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: initially
      1999 on the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of             M. A. Fierstra, and, subsequently, the former together with
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               10.5.2003
J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and R. Tricot): Application for                  Helga Kutz-Bauer and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, on the
annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of                         interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive
23 February 2000 determining in a particular case that an                     76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
application for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a               principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
specified amount and that there is no justification for remission             access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
of import duties in a separate amount, the Court (Fifth                       and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of                        (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                     Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                   er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,               J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
on 13 March 2003, in which it:                                                a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of 23 Febru-
      ary 2000 determining in a particular case that an application
      for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a specified
      amount and that there is no justification for remission of import
      duties in a separate amount in so far as it declares inadmissible       1.    Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on
      the amount of NLG 15 679 301,49 of the application for                        the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
      remission of import duties submitted by Cargill BV and referred               and women as regards access to employment, vocational
      to the Commission of the European Communities on 22 April                     training and promotion, and working conditions, must be
      1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands;                                       interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision of a
                                                                                collective agreement applicable to the public service which allows
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        male and female employees to take advantage of a scheme of
                                                                                part-time work for older employees where under that provision
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                       the right to participate in the scheme of part-time work applies
                                                                                only until the date on which the person concerned first becomes
                                                                                eligible for a retirement pension at the full rate under the
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                statutory old-age insurance scheme and where the class of
                                                                                persons eligible for such a pension at the age of 60 consists
                                                                                almost exclusively of women whereas the class of persons
                                                                                entitled to receive such a pension only from the age of
                                                                                65 consists almost exclusively of men, unless that provision is
                                                                                justified by objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                                grounds of sex.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 20 March 2003                                    2.    In the case of a breach of Directive 76/207 by legislative
                                                                                provisions or by provisions of collective agreements introducing
                                                                                discrimination contrary to that directive, the national courts are
in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                required to set aside that discrimination, using all the means at
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie
                                                                                their disposal, and in particular by applying those provisions
                   und Hansestadt Hamburg ( 1)
                                                                                for the benefit of the class placed at a disadvantage, and are not
                                                                                required to request or await the setting aside of the provisions
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                                by the legislature, by collective negotiation or otherwise.
Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
                                cation)
                           (2003/C 112/03)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-187/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary


title: Case T-563/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2010 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06, De Luca v Commission

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/27

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2010 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06, De Luca v Commission
   (Case T-563/10 P)
   2011/C 63/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 September 2010 (Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission) dismissing the appellant’s application;

               —

               giving judgment itself,

                           —

                           annul the decision of 23 February 2005 of the Commission of the European Communities appointing the applicant to a post as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2;

                           —

                           order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law alleging an error of law in that it was ruled that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union applied whereas that provision applies only to ‘recruitment’ of officials and the applicant was already an official at the time of her appointment.

                           —

                           The appellant claims that by ruling that that provision was applicable, the CST misunderstood the material scope of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Regulations, infringing the rule of interpretation according to which transitional legislative provisions must be interpreted strictly.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging an error of law in that the objection of illegality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations was rejected.

                           —

                           the appellant claims that the application of that provision results in an infringement of the fundamental principle of equal treatment of officials and the principle of entitlement to reasonable career prospects, inasmuch as the appellant was downgraded after passing a higher level competition whereas successful candidates in the internal competition of grade B*10 were treated more favourably in that their classification was set at grade A*10.

                           —

                           The appellant further claims that the CST erred in law in finding that an objection of illegality in respect of Articles 5(2) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations had not been raised implicitly on the basis of the plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-174/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/61

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-174/15) (1)

   (2017/C 144/90)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-244/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 15
pilot studies or preparatory action because it amounted to             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
the initiation of substantive action, and exceeded the powers           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
of initiative of the Commission . The invitation was also
                                                                                Case C-243/96 )
unsupported by adequate reasoning.
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/31 )
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of
                                                                       12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
competence, infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                       Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent,
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      prescribed period the laws, regulations and
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 93/62/EEC (') of 5 July 1993
                         ( Case C-241 /96 )                                  setting out the implementing measures concerning
                           ( 96/C 269/30 )                                   the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                             establishments pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                             92/33/EEC ( 2 )    on     the    marketing of  vegetable
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                   propagating and planting material other than seed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission ,
11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande , of                        obligations under Article 6 of the abovementioned
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Directive and also under the EC Treaty,
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force               forward in Case C-236/96 ( 3 ); the time limit set by the
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992                       (') OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .
     introducing Community measures for the control of                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Newcastle disease ( 1 ), or notify the Commission thereof,        ( 3 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .
     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-244/96 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                                ( 96/C 269/32 )
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                        12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the                    Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis , acting as Agent,
Commission thereof. The Hellenic Republic has not notified             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
the Commission of any laws, regulations or administrative              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
provisions necessary to bring domestic law into line with the
Directive .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
(') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/ 16           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14 . 9 . 96
     ( a ) Commission Directive 93/63/EEC ( ) of 5 July 1993            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           setting out the implementing measures concerning
           the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
           establishments pursuant to Council Directive                 binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
           91 /682/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of ornamental             State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
           plant propagating material and ornamental plants             an obligation to comply with the time limits set by directives
           and/or failing to communicate them to the                    for their implementation. In the present case, when the time
           Commission ;                                                 limit expired on 1 January 1993 , the Italian Republic had
                                                                        not taken the steps necessary to comply with Directive
     ( b ) Commission Directive 93/78/EEC of 21 September               92/42/EEC .
           1993 setting out additional implementing
           provisions for lists of varieties of ornamental plant
                                                                        (') OJ No L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p . 17.
           propagating material and ornamental plants, as
           kept by suppliers under Council Directive
           91 /682/EEC ( 3 ) and/or failing to communicate them
           to the Commission,
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/63/EEC and
     Article 3 of Directive 93/68 /EEC and also under the EC            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Office of the
     Treaty,                                                            Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal, by
                                                                        reference of that court of 9 July 1996, in the Case of
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                       Mrs Mary Teresa Maggorian and Mrs Irene Patricia
                                                                        Cunningham against the Eastern Health and Social Services
                                                                         Board and the Department of Health and Social Services
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case C-246/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                                       ( 96/C 269/34 )
forward in Case C-236/96 (4 ); the time limit set by the
Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(')  OJ No L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 31 .
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Office of the
(2)  OJ No L 276 , 31 . 10 . 1991 , p. 21 .                             Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal of
(?)  OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .                             9 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
(4 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .                             17 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Mrs Mary Teresa Maggorian and Mrs Irene Patricia
                                                                        Cunningham against the Eastern Health and Social Services
                                                                        Board and the Department of Health and Social Services, on
                                                                        the following questions :
Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the                 In circumstances where :
     European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           Case C-245 /96 )                             ( a ) a worker has been employed by a health board which is
                            ( 96/C 269/33 )                                   part of the State, in employment concerned with the
                                                                              care of the mentally ill to which an occupational
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     pension scheme applies;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                          ( b ) the worker has at all material times either been a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal                        member or been eligible to be a member of the pension
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                      scheme;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi .                                         ( c ) the pension scheme contains a term according to which
                                                                              those who work full time and devote all or substantially
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  all their working hours to the care of the mentally ill
                                                                              ( who are described as ' Mental Health Officers ') are
— declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations                    entitled to additional benefits not available to those
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   doing the same work part time, as follows : 'where a
      Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                           person has reached or passed the age of 50 and has
     efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired                  worked as a Mental Health Officer for 20 years ( here
     with liquid or gaseous fuels ('), or by not adopting the                 referred to as the 'qualifying service') and continues to
     necessary implementing measures, the Italian Republic                    work as a Mental Health Officer, then :
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                                ( i ) their subsequent service is reckoned for pension
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                                  purposes at twice its length ( here referred to as the
     proceedings .                                                                    'double-time service'); and


title: Case C-541/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — State aid — Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Act of individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/2

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)
   (Case C-541/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Right to bring an action - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - State aid - Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Act of individual concern to the appellant - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures))
   (2016/C 279/02)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S (represented by: B. Jacobi, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and M. P-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. C. Thorning, acting as Agent and R. Holdgaard, advokat), Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Limited (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Pliego Selie and M. Groothuismink, advocaten), European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (represented by: J. Heithecker, C.-D. Ehlermann and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-137/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark R10 — Non-registered national word mark R10 — Assignment of the national mark — Procedural defect)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10)
   (Case T-137/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark R10 - Non-registered national word mark R10 - Assignment of the national mark - Procedural defect)
   2011/C 13/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Mr Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Assignment of the applicant to a third country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in 2000 on the basis of Annex X — Inadmissibility of the action directed against the Commission's implied decisions)

text:
C 289/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.10.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 27 June 2001                                                             of 7 June 2001
                                                                          in Case T-328/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
in Joined Cases T-164/99, T-37/00 and T-38/00 Alain                                           European Communities (1)
   Leroy and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Assignment of the applicant to a third country
(Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen                       in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the Publications
Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council —                 Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the derogating
                       Action for annulment)                              provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Request
                                                                          to be reassigned to a third State submitted in 2000 on the
                                                                          basis of Annex X — Inadmissibility of the action directed
                          (2001/C 289/59)                                           against the Commission’s implied decisions)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/60)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-164/99, T-37/00 and T-38/00 Alain Leroy,
former employee of the Economic Union of Belgium, the                     In Case T-328/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
Netherlands and Luxembourg (Benelux) seconded to the                      mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
Schengen Secretariat, residing in Grimbergen, Belgium, Yan-               bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for
nick Chevalier-Delanoue, official of the Council of the Euro-             service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
pean Union, residing in Brussels, Belgium, Virginia Joaquim               Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
Matos, residing in Montijo, Portugal, represented by G. Vander-           directed, first, against a supposed implied rejection of the
sanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in               request to be reassigned to a third State, dated 6 June 2000,
Luxembourg, supported by Union syndicale-Bruxelles, estab-                and, secondly, against a supposed implied rejection of the
lished in Brussels, represented by S. Parmesan, lawyer, with an           applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2000 — the Court of
address for service in Luxembourg, intervener in Case T-                  First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
164/99, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                    President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
M. Bauer, F. Anton, and A. Bentley) — application — in Case               made an order on 7 June 2001, the operative part of which is
T-164/99 — for annulment of Council Decision 1999/307/EC                  as follows:
of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for the
integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General
Secretariat of the Council (OJ 1999 L 119, p. 49) and — in                1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Cases T-37/00 and T-38/00 — for annulment of Decision
1999/307, of various decisions of the Council appointing                  2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating
other persons to posts within that institution, and of the                      to the interlocutory proceedings.
implied decisions of the Council not to appoint the applicants
to any of those posts, and for damages — the Court of
                                                                          (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00.
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
27 June 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the actions;
                                                                          Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Entorn, Sociedat
2.    In Case T-164/99, orders the applicant to bear his own costs        Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis against Commission of the
      and pay those incurred by the Council, and orders the intervener                          European Communities
      to bear its own costs;
                                                                                (Case T-141/01)
3.    In Cases T-37/00 and T-38/00, orders the parties to bear
      their own costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 14 March 2002 in Case C-340/98: Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1998/1999 — Regionalisation — Non-deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1360/98 and 1361/98)

text:
C 118/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           18.5.2002
                JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            14 March 2002
                                                                                19 March 2002
in Case C-340/98: Italian Republic v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case C-426/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1998/1999 —
Regionalisation — Non-deficit areas — Classification of
Italy — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1360/98 and
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                               1361/98)
                                                                            Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                            capital — Special charges imposed on the formation of
                           (2002/C 118/02)                                  public and private limited liability companies, on the publi-
                                                                            cation and alteration of their statutes and on the increase in
                                                                                their capital)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (2002/C 118/03)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case C-340/98, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by I. M. Braguglia) v Council of the European Union (Agents:                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J. Carbery, I. Dı́ez Parra and A. Tanca), supported by Com-                                      in the European Court Reports)
mission of the European Communities (Agent: F. P. Ruggeri):
Application for annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar,
the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for
A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for storage                    In Case C-426/98, Commission of the European Communities
costs (OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3), in so far as it omits to fix the               (Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: P. Mylono-
derived intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy           poulos): Application for a declaration that, by imposing, in
and thus renders applicable in Italy the intervention price for             addition to capital duty, other special charges on the capital of
white sugar fixed by Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)                public and private limited liability companies on their forma-
No 1360/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999                        tion, on the publication and alteration of their statutes and on
marketing year, certain sugar prices and the standard quality               the increase in their capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
of beet (OJ 1998 L 185, p. 1), and, if necessary, annulment of              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and, more specifically,
Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1360/98, in so far as it also fixes           under Articles 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
the intervention price for white sugar for Italy, the Court (Sixth          17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,                 (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                  Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                  N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
14 March 2002, in which it:                                                 President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; C. Stix-
                                                                            Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
1.    Dismisses the application;                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear             1.     Declares that, by imposing, in addition to capital duty, other
      its own costs.                                                               special charges on the capital of public and private limited
                                                                                liability companies on their formation, on the publication and
                                                                                alteration of their statutes and on the increase in their capital,
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                                         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                                1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                                amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 April 1999 in Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Refusal of promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Other factors to be taken into consideration - Provision of a statement of reasons)

text:
C 265/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.9.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 June 1999
                          of 9 March 1999                                  in Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-273/97: Pierre Richard v European Parliament (1)                 (Non-contractual liability — MED programmes — Report
                                                                           of the Court of Auditors — Criticisms concerning the
                                                                                applicant)
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                                                 (1999/C 265/23)
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Recruitment of a
person from the reserve list of an open competition reserved
for nationals of the new Member States — Rejection of                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                            candidature)
                                                                           In Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl, whose registered office is
                                                                           in Rome, represented by Sergio Ristuccia and Gian Luigi
                                                                           Tosato, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
                          (1999/C 265/22)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-
                                                                           Croix v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Jean-Maria Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paola Giusta)
                                                                           — application under Articles 235 EC and 288, second para-
                                                                           graph, EC (ex Articles 178 and 215) for compensation for
                                                                           damage purportedly suffered by the applicant following criti-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        cisms directed at it by the Court of Auditors in Special
                                                                           Report No 1/96 on the MED programmes (submitted under
                                                                           Article 188C(4), second paragraph, of the EC Treaty) together
                                                                           with the Commission’s replies (OJ 1996 C 240, p. 1) — the
In Case T-273/97, Pierre Richard, official of the European                 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jae-
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by André                   ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi Judges; A. Mair, Admin-
Lutgen, and, for the oral procedure, by Jeanne Feltgen, of the             istrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 1999,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               the operative part of which is as follows:
their Chambers, 1, Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against European
Parliament (Agent: João Sant’Anna) — application, first, for              1. The action is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting
the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised by Notice              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
of Vacancy No 8011 and, second, for annulment of the
appointment of Mrs S. to that post and of the procedure
leading to that appointment — the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March
1999, in which it:
1. Annuls the procedure for the appointment of Mrs S. to the post              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     of Head of Division A 3 and the Decision of 9 January 1997.
                                                                                of 27 April 1999
2. Annuls the Decisions of 11 February and 23 July 1997 rejecting          in Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus v Commission of the
     the applicant’s candidature and his complaint respectively.                              European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of
3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 comparative merits — Other factors to be taken into
                                                                                consideration — Provision of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/24)
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by Jean-
                                                                           Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Françoise Parmentier and,
 ---pagebreak--- 18.9.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 265/13
initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             Vicente, Saturnino Durán Vidal, Alfredo Escribano Martı́nez,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                       Pablo Fernández Ruiz, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Luis Guembe
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European                         Casi, Ana Luisa Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Géraldine O’Shea,
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence                    Antonio Oliva Español, Pablo Pardo Ortiz, Manuel Parejo
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annulment of the                        Pagador, Ernesto Pérez Carbonell, Dolores Rodrı́guez Pérez,
decision not to promote the applicant to grade B 3 in the                      Enrique Rojas De Montis, Alfonso Ruiz De Azoa Castano and
1997 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance                        Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet are annulled inasmuch as they
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and                       refuse them, in respect of the period prior to that date, financial
R. Garcı́a Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-                  assistance for the legal fees occasioned by the proceedings brought
trator, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 27 April 1999,                before Spanish courts for the purpose of securing the transfer to
in which it:                                                                   the Community scheme of their retirement pension rights acquired
                                                                               in Spain;
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2. For the rest, the applications in Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98
2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs            are dismissed.
     incurred by the applicant up until the date of receipt by him of
     the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant is ordered to     3. The Commission shall pay two thirds of the costs of the applicants
     bear the costs incurred by him thereafter.                                in Case T-114/98. For the rest, each party shall bear its own
                                                                               costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 May 1999
                            of 1 June 1999
                                                                           in Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs
in Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́-                     Réunis de Roquefort and Others v Commission of the
guez Pérez and Others and José Maria Olivares Ramos and                                        European Communities (1)
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Case not proceeding to judgment)
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — National proceed-
            ings — Request for financial assistance)                                                 (1999/C 265/26)
                           (1999/C 265/25)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis
                    (Language of the cases: Spanish)                       de Roquefort, established at Roquefort-sur-Soulzon (France),
                                                                           Société Fromagère Corse, established at Bastia (France), Société
In Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́guez                  pour la Valorisation du Lait de Brebis du Grand Sud-Ouest
Pérez and 23 others and José Marı́a Olivares Ramos and 55                  (Valbreso). established at La Canourgue (France), Compagnie
others, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                  des Fromages, established at Viré (France), Fromager du Causse,
Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars, with an                established at Roquefort (France), Alliance Agro Alimentaire,
address for service at 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels,                    established in Toulouse (France), and Confédération Générale
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis et des Industriels de
Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier) — application                Roquefort, established at Millau (France), represented by
for annulment on the Commission decisions refusing to grant                F. Ancel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
the applicants financial assistance for the transfer to the                Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de
Community pension scheme of pension rights which they                      Bourbon, v Commission of the European Communities
acquired under the Spanish scheme, as provided for under                   (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid) supported
Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of          by Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos
the European Communities, or discontinuing that financial                  AEBE — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
assistance — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1999 on the registration of
composed of M. Jaeger President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                 geographical indications and designations of origin under the
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
has given a judgment on 1 June 1999, the operative part of                 No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns
which is as follows:                                                       registration of the name ‘feta’ as a protected designation of
                                                                           origin — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), com-
1. The decisions of 10 November 1997 addressed to Rafael Aguirre           posed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
     Unceta, Miguel Alay Marcos, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Soledad           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 May 1999, the
     Blanco Mangudo, Federica Burel Louberry, Fabriciano Corchete          operative part of which is as follows: