title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-88/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Umberto Merlo (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
C 200/28                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                14.7.2001
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-88/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-89/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Umberto                           the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Catanzaro v Patrizia
                                  Merlo (1)                                                                     Caffarelli (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/49)                                                                 (2001/C 200/50)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-89/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Genova and Umberto                        before that court between Questore di Catanzaro and Patrizia
Merlo on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty                  Caffarelli on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC
on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),                     Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                          Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-                      er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                        follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-178/06: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 21 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 21 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-178/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/54)

      Language of the case: Estonian

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

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case T-43/17: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NO LIMITS — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/51

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)
   (Case T-43/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NO LIMITS - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 283/79)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: No Limits International Investments SA (Bissone, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Canu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Morellato SpA (Fratte di Santa Giustina in Colle, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2007/2015-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Morellato and No Limits Investments.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by No Limits International Investments SA.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-203/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic — Spain) — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal — Independence — Compulsory jurisdiction — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2 — Bodies responsible for review procedures — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 1(8) and 52 — Public procurement procedures — Meaning of ‘public entity’ — Public authorities — Inclusion)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic — Spain) — Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva
   (Case C-203/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Status of the referring body as a court or tribunal - Independence - Compulsory jurisdiction - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 2 - Bodies responsible for review procedures - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 1(8) and 52 - Public procurement procedures - Meaning of ‘public entity’ - Public authorities - Inclusion))
   (2015/C 389/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Català de Contractes del Sector Públic

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorci Sanitari del Maresme

      Defendant: Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(8) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘economic operator’ in the second subparagraph of that provision encompasses public authorities, which may therefore participate in public tendering procedures if and to the extent that they are authorised to offer certain services in return for remuneration on a market.

               2.

               Article 52 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted to the effect that — although it includes certain requirements with regard to the determination of the conditions for registration of economic operators on the national official lists and for certification — it does not exhaustively define (i) the conditions for registration of those economic operators on the national official lists or the conditions for their certification or (ii) the rights and obligations of public entities in that respect. In all events, Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as precluding national rules under which, on the one hand, national public authorities that are authorised to offer the works, products or services covered by the contract notice concerned may not be registered on those lists, or may not obtain certification, while, on the other hand, the right to participate in the tendering procedure concerned is afforded only to operators which are included on those lists or which have obtained certification.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-732/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/41

      Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council
      (Case T-732/14)
      (2015/C 016/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, P. Crowther and J. Fearns, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 insofar as they apply to the applicant;

                  —

                  make a declaration of illegality as regards the provisions summarised at paragraph 52 of the application;

                  —

                  order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine were fulfilled as regards the applicant. The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council breached its obligation to give reasons for listing the applicant insofar as it failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review insofar as it did not inform the applicant of its inclusion in the contested measures and failed to provide any evidence to support the applicant’s inclusion.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of its fundamental rights including its right to protection of its business and reputation.


title: Case T-143/15: Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/19

         Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-143/15)
   (2015/C 178/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul in part the Commission’s implementing decision of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes:

                           1.

                           aid received by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Andalucía totalling EUR 3 5 86  250,48 plus EUR 1 8 66  977,31 (decoupled direct aid) in financial years 2009 and 2010,

                           2.

                           expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the Comunidad de Castilla y León amounting to EUR 2 1 23  619,66 (EUR 1  479,90 euros + EUR 9 78  849,95 + EUR 12  597,37 + EUR 1  720,85 + EUR 1 0 96  710,18 + EUR 32  261,41) in respect of ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in financial years 2010 and 2011; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Kingdom of Spain claims that the contested decision should be annulled on the following grounds:

               1.

               The imposition of a flat-rate correction in the amount of EUR 5 4 53  227,79 (decoupled direct aids) is contrary to Article 27(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Articles 3 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, for two reasons:

                           —

                           The Commission misinterpreted Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, given that the fact that the results of the random samples carried out in 2008 and 2009 were not as good as the results of the risk sample does not constitute an infringement of that article and, accordingly, does not constitute an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

                           —

                           The Commission could not reasonably conclude that Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 had been infringed given that the evidence adduced by the Kingdom of Spain during the verification procedure established that an adequate analysis had been carried out and appropriate measures had been taken to improve risk-based selection. Accordingly, there has not been an infringement of EU law which excludes financing of agricultural expenditure under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

               2.

               The imposition of a correction in the amount of EUR 2 1 23  619,66 (‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’) should be annulled for the following reasons:

                           —

                           It infringes Articles 10(2), 10(4) and 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 in so far as the Commission found that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations concerning controls on the ground, since it had failed to carry out animal counts during on-the-spot checks in respect of aid pertaining to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’. This plea in law is divided into two parts, by which the Kingdom of Spain submits that:

                                       a)

                                       the obligation to count animals during on-the-spot checks in respect of the aid for the rural development programme of Castilla y León 2007-2013 breaches the principle of the continuity of the livestock density criterion and the principle of equal treatment, and

                                       b)

                                       the Commission wrongly interpreted Articles 10(2) and 10(4), read in conjunction with Article 14(2), of Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 by finding that the Spanish system was not appropriate for verifying compliance with the livestock density criterion.

                           —

                           It infringes Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and Article 26(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, to the extent that the Kingdom of Spain has databases of cattle, sheep and goats which are reliable and continually updated in accordance with requirements.

                           —

                           It infringes Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in so far as it is manifestly disproportionate to impose a financial correction of 5 % in respect of the measures concerned by the investigation. The financial correction is disproportionate as, even if the infringement attributed to the Spanish authorities were to be confirmed, the contested decision goes beyond what is appropriate and necessary to protect the financial interests of the Union.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos and other substances — Irregularity in the opinion of the medical committee — Default procedure)

text:
C 95/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
Chambers of M. Karp, 84 Grand-Rue, against European                       B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and G. Vandersanden)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 November
— application for compensation for the non-material damage                2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
which the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the
refusal of the European Investment Bank to comply with the                1.    The Commission’s decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999                    recognise the occupational origin of the disease suffered by
in Case T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and                         Arlette Fernandes-De Corte is annulled;
II-897 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), compo-
sed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,        2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 2000 in which it:                                 3.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
      EUR 25 000 in reparation of the non-material damage which           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.00.
      he has incurred;
2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs relating
      to the main proceedings;
3.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the cashier of
      the Court the sum of EUR 3 000, or any lower amount
      justified by the applicant as expenses relating to the main             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      proceedings;
                                                                                of 21 November 2000
4.    Orders each party to bear its own costs in regard to the
      proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                          in Case T-23/00: A v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
                                                                          (Officials — Criminal conviction by a national court —
                                                                                Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/23)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                      of 15 November 2000                                 In Case T-23/00: A, a former official of the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by L. Vogel, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
in Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes v Commission
                                                                          Chambers of C. Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
                                                                          sia and J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the
(Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos                  Commission’s decision of 4 November 1999 rejecting the
and other substances — Irregularity in the opinion of the                 complaint lodged by the applicant challenging its decision of
            medical committee — Default procedure)                        23 April 1999 ordering his removal from post and, so far as
                                                                          is necessary, annulment of the opinion delivered by the
                           (2001/C 95/22)                                 Disciplinary Board on 30 November 1998 — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          21 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes, an official of                    1.    The application is dismissed;
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels             2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, against
Commission of the European Communities — application for                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
the annulment of the Commission decision of 10 February
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of the applicant’s wife —


title: Case C-380/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH against Dornbirn

text:
11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 7/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of                Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of
        Skatteministeriet against Imexpo Trading A/S                    that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Fantom
                                                                         Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH against Dornbirn
                         (Case C-379/02)
                                                                                (Case C-380/02)
                          (2003/C 7/18)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/19)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
15 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October           European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet         tungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (independent administrative
against Imexpo Trading A/S on the following question:                   chamber for Vorarlberg) of 15 October 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH
Must Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 ( 1) of             against Dornbirn on the following questions:
23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 ( 2) of
9 September 1996, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/
97 (3) of 4 November 1997, Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2261/98 ( 4) of 26 October 1998 and Commission Regu-                 Question 1
lation (EC) No 2204/99 (5) of 12 October 1999, be construed
as meaning that chairmats consisting of loose sheets of clear
plastic                                                                 Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
                                                                        ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
—     with straight, round or bevelled sides, which may be              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
      machine-milled or cast                                            procedures to the award of public supply and public works
                                                                        contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that under it
                                                                        entitlement to apply for a review procedure is available to any
—     with grippers on the under side for carpeted floors and           person seeking to receive a specific public contract whose
      without grippers for wooden and other hard-surface                award is pending, irrespective of whether such person has
      floors,                                                           suffered or may suffer loss as a result of the infringement of
                                                                        the law alleged?
—     with or without anti-slip film,
—     with or without a punched handle,
                                                                        Question 2
—     which are used as mats for chairs in order to protect the
      existing floor covering or for reasons of ergonomics,
                                                                        In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
—     and which are further described in the attached brochure
      (Annex 1),
                                                                        Is the abovementioned provision of the directive to be
were to be classified, over the period from 15 July 1997 to             construed as meaning that, where a bid was not eliminated by
20 March 2000, as floor coverings of plastics under tariff              the contracting authority but the review body assumes and
subheading 3918 10 90 90 in Chapter 39 or as furniture of               establishes as a preliminary matter that the bid had properly
plastics under tariff subheading 9403 70 90 00 in Chapter 94?           to be eliminated, an alleged infringement of the law — namely
                                                                        the contracting authority’s acceptance of another bid as the
                                                                        best bid, has occasioned or may occasion loss to the bidder
                                                                        concerned, and the review procedure must therefore be
( 1) OJ L 256, p. 1.                                                    available to that bidder?
( 2) OJ L 238, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 312, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 292, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 278, p. 1.                                                    (1 ) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.


title: Case C-589/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Polish Republic) lodged on 14 December 2010 — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku (Polish Republic) lodged on 14 December 2010 — Janina Wencel v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku
   (Case C-589/10)
   2011/C 89/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Janina Wencel

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych w Białymstoku

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of freedom of movement and residence in the Member States of the European Union, as expressed in Articles 21 and 20(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, mean that Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) must be interpreted as meaning that old-age cash benefits acquired under the legislation of one Member State are not to be subject to any reduction, modification, suspension, withdrawal or confiscation by reason of the fact that the recipient lived simultaneously (had two equivalent habitual residences) in the territory of two Member States, including of one other than that in which the institution responsible for payment of the retirement pension is situated?

               2.

               Must Articles 21 and 20(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 be interpreted as precluding the application of national provision Article 114(1) of the Ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych (Polish Law on retirement pensions and other pensions from the Social Security Fund) of 17 December 1998 (Dziennik Ustaw of 2009, No 153, item 1227, as amended), in conjunction with Article 4 of the Agreement of 9 October 1975 between the People’s Republic of Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany on pension and accident insurance (Dziennik Ustaw No 16, item 101, of 1976, as amended), which entails re-examination of the case by the Polish pension institution and removal of the pension right of a person who, for many years, has had simultaneously two habitual residences (two centres of interest) in two countries now belonging to the European Union and who did not, prior to 2009, submit an application or declaration concerning the transfer of residence to one of those countries?
               In the event that the answer is in the negative:

               3.

               Must Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 10 of Council Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as precluding the application of national provision Article 138(1) and (2) of the Ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych of 17 December 1998 (Dziennik Ustaw of 2009, No 153, item 1227, as amended), which entails the demanding by the Polish pension institution of repayment of a retirement pension in respect of the period of the last three years from a person who, from 1975 to 2009 had simultaneously two habitual residences (two centres of interest) in two countries now belonging to the European Union, where that person had not, at the time the application for the grant of a retirement pension was examined and after it was received, been advised by the Polish insurance institution of the need to inform it also that he has two habitual residences in two countries and of the need to submit an application or declaration concerning the choice of an insurance institution of one of those countries as competent to consider applications concerning retirement pensions?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2003 In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien and Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Renate Sterbenz and Paul Dieter Haug (Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs)

text:
8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 55/3
des Dauphins and Newcastle United Football Company Ltd,                      powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23),
on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                   the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
after amendment, Article 49 EC), the Court, composed of:                     J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and                     C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                            F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Admin-
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                   istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-                 2003, in which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                 1.    Annuls Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the High Court of                   concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, by order of                  (LIFE);
28 July 2000 is inadmissible.
                                                                             2.    Declares that the measures for the implementation of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 already adopted at the time of the present
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.                                                       judgment are not affected by it;
                                                                             3.    Declares that the effects of Article 11(2) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1655/2000 are to be fully maintained until the Parliament
                                                                                and the Council adopt new provisions concerning the committee
                                                                                procedure to which the measures for the implementation of that
                                                                                regulation are subject;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       4.    Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the
                                                                                European Union to pay the costs.
                        of 21 January 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
in Case C-378/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v European Parliament and Council of the European
                              Union ( 1)
(Comitology — Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission — Criteria for choosing                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
between the different procedures for adopting implementing
measures — Effects — Obligation to state reasons —                                                   of 23 January 2003
Annulment in part of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 (Refer-
       Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE))
                                                                             ence for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
                                                                             Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                          (2003/C 55/05)                                     tungssenat Wien and Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Renate
                                                                                Sterbenz and Paul Dieter Haug (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
                                                                             Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                     foodstuffs)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/06)
In Case C-378/00, Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Agent: D. Maidani) v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore), and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J.-P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin) supported by United Kingdom of                                    in the European Court Reports)
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
by M. Hoskins): Application for the annulment of Regulation
(EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the                      In Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01: References
Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument                  to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger
for the Environment (LIFE) (OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1), in so far as               Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (Austria), the Unabhängiger
it makes the adoption of measures for the implementation of                  Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) and the Verwaltungsgerichts-
the LIFE programme subject to the regulatory procedure under                 hof (Austria) respectively for preliminary rulings in the
Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999                    criminal proceedings pending before those courts against
laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing                  Renate Sterbenz (C-421/00) and Paul Dieter Haug (C-426/00
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.3.2003
and C-16/01), on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30                 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
EC and of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December                        lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                   of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of                   works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
foodstuffs (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/                 Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        coordination of procedures for the award of public service
27 January 1997 (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), the Court (Sixth                      contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), and of Council Directive 93/
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                      procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  L 199, p. 54), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,                V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
in which it has ruled:                                                       (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
                                                                             H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/              given a judgment on 23 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising        1.    Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
of foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European                     coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, preclude a                       contracts does not preclude national rules which prohibit a
system such as that established by Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the                   change in the composition of a group consortium taking part
Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten,                 in a procedure for the award of a public works contract or a
Zusatzstoffen, kosmetischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen                      public works concession which occurs after submission of
(Lebensmittelgesetz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs,                     tenders;
products intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic
                                                                             2.    In so far as a decision of a contracting authority adversely
products and consumer goods) which lays down a general prohibition,
                                                                                affects the rights conferred on a consortium by Community law
subject to prior authorisation, of all health-related information on
                                                                                in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract,
the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs.
                                                                                the consortium must be able to avail itself of the review
                                                                                procedures provided for by Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.                                                        21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and public
                                                                                works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC
                                                                                of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 23 January 2003
in Case C-57/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Makedoniko Metro,
             Mikhaniki AE v Elliniko Dimosio ( 1),                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
(Public works contracts — Rules for participating — Group                                              of 30 January 2003
of contractors submitting a tender — Change in the compo-
sition of the group — Prohibition laid down in the contract                  in Case C-226/01: Commission of the European Communi-
documents — Compatibility with Community law — Review                                          ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)
                            procedures)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                          (2003/C 55/07)                                     Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Danish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-57/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-226/01, Commission of the European Communities
Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki AE and Elliniko Dimosio,                         (Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agents:
on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of                     J. Molde and J. Bering Liisberg): Application for a declaration


title: Case C-549/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Carriage by air — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Cancellation due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
   (Case C-549/07) (1)

   (Carriage by air - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5 - Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Cancellation due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)
   (2009/C 44/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Friederike Wallentin-Hermann

      Defendant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘reasonable measures’ — Cancellation of a flight on account of an engine defect — Substantially higher rate of cancellations due to technical defects than that of other airlines
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

               2.

               The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

               3.

               The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-3/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2015  — Alexandra Stück v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2015 — Alexandra Stück v Swiss International Air Lines AG
   (Case C-3/15)
   (2015/C 118/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alexandra Stück

      Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

      Question referred

   Is the Agreement on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community (1) of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee (2) of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (3) [‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’] is applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(b), also to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport in Switzerland with a Swiss air carrier?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73.

      (2)  Decision No 2/2010 of the Joint Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 26 November 2010 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, OJ 2010 L 347, p. 54.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-50/98)

text:
2.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) in so
                                                                            far as it concerns the applicant,
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January
    1998 in Case IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) in so far as               Ð in the alternative, reduce the fine,
    it is addressed to it,
                                                                        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð alternatively, reduce substantially the fine imposed on
    it,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        For some time a number of producers of stainless steel
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     have applied a common mark-up, which is known as the
                                                                        alloy surcharge. That price supplement is calculated on the
By the contested decision the Commission found that the                 basis of the price of the components of the alloy.
applicant, a Spanish public company active in the stainless
steel sector, together with other companies manufacturing               According to the Commission, in its decision of 21 January
these products, had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC                 1998, there is an agreement between the producers to that
Treaty by jointly agreeing in December 1993 to modify                   effect. The cartel restricts competition to a substantial
and apply in concert the reference values of the                        extent, since the undertakings involved produce 90 % of
calculation formula of alloy surcharges, a practice which,              all stainless steel. According to the Commission, those
the Commission claimed, had as its object and effect, the               agreements constitute an infringement of Article 65 of the
restriction and distortion of competition within the                    ECSC Treaty.
common market.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the Commission's decision on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are, in principle, the              grounds that:
same as those raised in Cases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni and                      Ð even without the agreements all producers would have
T-49/98 ALZ NV, concerning the other companies                              taken steps to adapt prices to the economic situation,
forming the alleged cartel (1).
                                                                        Ð the Commission overestimated the impact of the alloy
The applicant further claims not to have participated in
                                                                            surcharge on prices and failed to take account of the
any agreement or concerted practice within the meaning
                                                                            circumstances of each individual undertaking
of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. If the applicant could be
                                                                            concerned,
regarded as having participated in such agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, the infringement can, at
most, be regarded as sporadic and ephemeral and not as                  Ð the Commission imposed similar fines on all the
having the duration alleged by the Commission. Finally,                     undertakings concerned, without taking account of the
the fines imposed on the applicant are in any event                         considerable differences between the sizes of the
disproportionate and discriminatory.                                        undertakings,
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          Ð the Commission infringed the rights of the defence.
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against                       Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
          Commission of the European Communities                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-49/98)                                                         (Case T-50/98)
                          (98/C 137/46)                                                          (98/C 137/47)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1998                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
by ALZ NV, established in Genk, Belgium, represented by                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Loesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, 11, rue Goethe.                          Luxembourg Bar, 180, route de Longwy.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998)68 final of                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
    21 January 1998 concerning a procedure pursuant to                      him to Grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,
 ---pagebreak--- C 137/22          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 2.5.98
Ð annul the decision of the Commission to promote the           Ð order the defendant to pay monetary compensation in
   118 persons chosen from the list of officials most               respect of non-material damage suffered in the order
   deserving of promotion to Grade A 4, published in                of LUF 500 000 or any other amount which the Court
   Administrative Notices No 999 of 12 August 1997,                 may deem fair and equitable,
   operational appropriations, 1997 promotions to Grade
   A 4,                                                         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul, in so far as necessary, the express decision of
   the Commission of 8 January 1998 rejecting the               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
   applicant's complaint No R634/97 of 28 August 1997,          those in Case T-234/97 (1).
   lodged with the Secretariat-General on 3 September
   1997,                                                        (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 20.


title: Case T-242/15: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — ACDA and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Extension of concession contracts — Motorway investment plan in France — Decision not to raise any objections — Association — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — ACDA and Others v Commission
   (Case T-242/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Extension of concession contracts - Motorway investment plan in France - Decision not to raise any objections - Association - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 070/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Automobile club des avocats (ACDA) (Paris, France), Organisation des transporteurs routiers européens (OTRE) (Bordeaux, France), Fédération française des motards en colère (FFMC) (Paris), Fédération française de motocyclisme (Paris), Union nationale des automobile clubs (Paris) (represented by: M. Lesage, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7850 final of 28 October 2014 on State aid SA.2014/N 38271 — France — Motorway investment plan.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the French Republic.

               3.

               The Automobile club des avocats (ACDA), the Organisation des transporteurs routiers européens (OTRE), the Fédération française des motards en colère (FFMC), the Fédération française de motocyclisme and the Union nationale des automobile clubs shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs in relation to the application to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-225/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Italy v Commission (Structural Funds — Financing of Community initiatives — Amendment of indicative allocations — Enforcement of the final judgment — Annulling judgment)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-225/04) (1)

   (Structural Funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Amendment of indicative allocations - Enforcement of the final judgment - Annulling judgment)
   (2006/C 224/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: A. Cingolo, P. Gentili and D. Del Gaizo, and subsequently by P. Gentili and D. Del Gaizo, avvocati dello Stato, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and J. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004 (Case C-60/04).


title: Case C-184/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
   (Case C-184/05)
   (2005/C 217/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Twoh International BV and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst on the following question:
   Is Article 28c A (a) of the Sixth Directive (1) — in conjunction with the mutual assistance directive (2) and the Regulation (3) — to be interpreted as meaning that, if no relevant information has been provided voluntarily by the Member State of arrival, the Member State of the dispatch or transport of the goods must request the alleged Member State of arrival of those goods to provide information and must take the results of that request into account when examining the evidence of the dispatch or transport of the goods?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (OJ L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 (OJ L 336, p. 15), as amended by Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ L 76, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24, p. 1).


title: Case C-81/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), lodged on 25 February 2009 — Idrima Tipou A.E. v Ipourgos Tipou Kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), lodged on 25 February 2009 — Idrima Tipou A.E. v Ipourgos Tipou Kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis
   (Case C-81/09)
   2009/C 102/23
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Idrima Tipou A.E.

      Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis

      Question referred

   Does Directive 68/151/EEC, which provides in Article 1 that ‘the coordination measures prescribed by this Directive shall apply to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the following types of company: … — in Greece: ανώνυμη εταιρία.’, contain a rule prohibiting the adoption of a national provision, such as Article 4(3) of Law 2328/1995, in so far as it specifies that the fines provided for in the preceding paragraphs of that article for infringement of legislation and rules of good conduct governing the operation of television stations are imposed jointly and severally on both the company which holds the licence to found and operate the television station and on all shareholders with a holding of over 2.5%?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-121/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien): Walter Hahn (Fisheries — Health policy — Directive 91/493/EEC and Decision 94/356/EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Principle of proportionality — Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 323/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 24 October 2002                                                        of 14 November 2002
in Case C-121/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-140/00: Commission of the European Communi-
   the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien): Walter Hahn ( 1)                  ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland ( 1)
(Fisheries — Health policy — Directive 91/493/EEC and
Decision 94/356/EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Principle of proportionality — Limit values for the presence                Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery
      of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products)                         resources — Control measures for fishing activities)
                           (2002/C 323/11)                                                           (2002/C 323/12)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-140/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Fitch) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                            Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
                                                                            M. Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, in
                                                                            respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, by:
In Case C-121/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Austria) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                  —     failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the
court against Walter Hahn on the interpretation of Council                        utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for
the production and the placing on the market of fishery
products (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                 —     failing to carry out the inspections and other controls
                                                                                required by the relevant Community regulations,
composed of: A. La Pergola, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                    —     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002 , in                           had been exhausted,
which it has ruled:
                                                                            —     failing to take administrative or penal action against the
Neither Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying                       masters of vessels infringing the regulations or against
down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the              any other person responsible for such infringement,
market of fishery products and Commission Decision 94/356/EC of
20 May 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of               the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
Council Directive 91/493/EEC as regards own health checks on                failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
fishery products nor Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
application of national legislation laying down zero tolerance for the      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products which have not          management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1) or, with
been chemically preserved.                                                  effect from 1 January 1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a
                                                                            Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                            L 389, p. 1), as well as Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
                                                                            measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) or, with
                                                                            effect from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-422/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ), Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (Occupational endowment pension insurance — Policy taken out with a company in another Member State — Difference in tax treatment — Compatibility with Article 49 EC)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 184/13
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-425/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incom-
                                                                              plete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and
                                                                                health of workers)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/24)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                              In Case C-425/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: H. Kreppel and M. França) v Portuguese Republic
in Case C-422/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes): Application for a
the Regeringsrätten): Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia                         declaration that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
          (publ), Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (1)                         obligations under Articles 4 and 10 to 12 of Council Directive
                                                                              89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
                                                                              to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
(Occupational endowment pension insurance — Policy taken                      at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
out with a company in another Member State — Difference                       composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.
    in tax treatment — Compatibility with Article 49 EC)                      A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
                            (2003/C 184/23)
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the action;
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                          2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                              (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                       the European Court Reports)
In Case C-422/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the proceedings pending before that court between Försäk-
ringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ), Ola Ramstedt and Riksskatte-                                           (Fifth Chamber)
verket, on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and Article 49
EC in particular, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                                of 5 June 2003
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas,                       in Case C-438/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  the Cour de cassation): Design Concept SA v Flanders
given a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                    Expo SA (1)
                                                                              (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9(2)(e) — Place of taxable
Article 49 EC precludes an insurance policy issued by an insurance               transactions — Fiscal connection — Advertising services)
company established in another Member State which meets the
conditions laid down in national law for occupational pension insur-                                     (2003/C 184/25)
ance, apart from the condition that the policy must be issued by an
insurance company operating in the national territory, from being                                  (Language of the case: French)
treated differently in terms of taxation, with income tax effects which,
depending on the circumstances in the individual case, may be less            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
favourable.                                                                                the European Court Reports)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                      In Case C-438/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case T-326/09: Action brought on 10 August 2009 — E v Parliament

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/32

         Action brought on 10 August 2009 — E v Parliament
   (Case T-326/09)
   2009/C 256/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: E (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Bureau of the Parliament of 9 March and 3 April 2009 amending the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme for Members of the European Parliament;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 9 March and 3 April 2009 amending the rules on the Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme in Annex VIII of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament. The amendments essentially concern the withdrawal of the possibility to take early retirement from age 50 and the possibility to receive the pension as a lump sum, and the raising of the retirement age from 60 to 63 years.
   The pleas in law and main arguments invoked by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those invoked in the context of Case T-219/09 Balfe and Others v Parliament
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 205, p. 39.


title: Case T-212/10: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS) (Action for annulment — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/39

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-212/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 234/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M.S. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 1112/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Strålfors AB shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-374/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2015  — KSR v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon) (Community trade mark — Proceedings seeking a declaration of invalidity — Community word mark Moon — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive nature — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — KSR v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)
   (Case T-374/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Proceedings seeking a declaration of invalidity - Community word mark Moon - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive nature - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 089/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: KSR Kunststoff Rotation GmbH (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and M. Nielen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, subsequently by: D. Walicka, and finally by: A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG (Schlitz, Germany) (represented by: G. Rother, P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, J. Künzel, J. Bühling, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, A. Kramer, J. Vogtmeier and A. Verhauwen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 676/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG and KSR Kunststoff Rotation GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders KSR Kunststoff Rotation GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-572/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem — Czech Republic) — RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o. v Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem (Preliminary references — VAT — Exemption for lettings of immovable property — Cleaning of common parts related to the letting — Ancillary supplies)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem — Czech Republic) — RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o. v Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem
   (Case C-572/07) (1)

   (Preliminary references - VAT - Exemption for lettings of immovable property - Cleaning of common parts related to the letting - Ancillary supplies)
   2009/C 180/19
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o.

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 13 B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Scope of the VAT exemption on the letting of immovable property — Inclusion of costs for cleaning the common parts of an apartment block.

      Operative part of the judgment

   For the purposes of applying Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the letting of immovable property and the cleaning service of the common parts of the latter must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as independent, mutually divisible operations, so that the said service does not fall within that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-771/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/34

         Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)
   (Case T-771/15)
   (2016/C 191/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Hopper, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BitTorrent, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU mark No 3 216 439

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2275/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) and of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2002 in Case T-236/00: Gabriele Stauner and Others v European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission — Article 197 EC — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 131/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 January 2002
                     of 27 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-236/00: Gabriele Stauner and Others v European
                                                                          Parliament and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
in Case T-222/00: Otto Wöhr GmbH v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Framework agreement on relations
                                                                          between the European Parliament and the Commission —
                                                                                Article 197 EC — Inadmissibility)
(State aid — Approval decisions — Refusal to open the
procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC — Complaint —                                                (2002/C 131/35)
                          Admissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                        (2002/C 131/34)
                                                                          In Case T-236/00: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfratshausen
                                                                          (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Denmark),
                  (Language of the case: German)                          Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen (Denmark), Rijk
                                                                          van Dam, residing in Rotterdam (Netherlands), Christopher
                                                                          Heaton-Harris, residing in Kettering, Northamptonshire
                                                                          (United Kingdom), Franz-Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-
                                                                          sur-l’Isar (Germany), Ursula Schleicher, residing in Munich
                                                                          (Germany), Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark),
                                                                          Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (Netherlands),
In Case T-222/00: Otto Wöhr GmbH, established at Friolzheim               Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Nether-
(Germany), represented by C. Hebel and G. Walz, v Com-                    lands), Michl Ebner, residing in Bolzano (Italy), Joost Lagendijk,
mission of the European Communities, (Agents: K.-D. Borch-                residing in Rotterdam, Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium),
ardt and M. Nuñez-Müller), — application for annulment of                Franziska Emilia Müller, residing in Bruck (Upper Palatinate)
the Commission’s decision of 26 June 2000 not to open the                 (Germany), Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern
formal examination procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC,                (Germany), Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam, Heide
following the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning                Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Inger Schöring, residing
State aid in favour of Hydraulik Markranstädt GmbH and                    in Gävle (Sweden), Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki
Hydraulik Seehausen GmbH, — the Court of First Instance                   (Finland), Bart Staes, residing in Antwerp (Belgium), Claude
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                       Turmes, residing in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg), Lousewies
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili. J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi            van der Laan, residing in Brussels (Belgium), Members of
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on             the European Parliament, represented by J. Sedemund and
27 November 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:              T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
                                                                          and M. Berger) and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis), — application for annulment
                                                                          of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on Relations
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                          between the European Parliament and the Commission (OJ
                                                                          2001 C 121, p. 122), — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                          Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
2.   The parties are ordered to pay their own costs.                      P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                          17 January 2002, in which it:
3.   There is no need to give a decision on the Federal Republic of
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
     Germany’s application to intervene.
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those of the
                                                                                Parliament and the Commission, including those incurred in
                                                                                the proceedings for interim measures.
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case F-115/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission
   (Case F-115/14) (1)

   (2016/C 287/46)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 55.