title: Joined Cases F-69/07 and F-60/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — O v Commission (Staff case — Members of the Contractual staff — Article 88 of the CEOS — Stable employment — Article 100 of the CEOS — Medical proviso — Article 39 EC — Free movement of workers)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — O v Commission
   (Joined Cases F-69/07 and F-60/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Members of the Contractual staff - Article 88 of the CEOS - Stable employment - Article 100 of the CEOS - Medical proviso - Article 39 EC - Free movement of workers)
   2010/C 24/127
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: O (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, in Case F-69/07, I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents, and, in Case F-60/08, I. Šulce and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents, and, subsequently, in both cases, by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents.

      Re:

   F-69/07: Annulment of the Commission’s decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in so far as they, first, provide for the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS and in Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and, second, limit the duration of the contract to the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009.
   F-60/08: Annulment of the decision of the Commission to apply to the applicant, following the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 September 2006 in so far as it imposes a medical proviso in respect of the applicant;

               2.

               Dismisses Case F-69/07 O v Commission for the remainder as unfounded;

               3.

               Dismisses Case F-60/08 O v Commission as inadmissible;

               4.

               In Case F-69/07, the European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicant’s costs;

               5.

               The applicant is ordered to bear half its costs in Case F-69/07 and to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission in Case F-60/08.

      (1)  F-69/07: OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 29.
   F-60/08: OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008, p. 63.


title: Case T-385/03: Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 35/12                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
By the contested decision the Commission decided that                           Office for Harmonisation of 27 August 2003 in Case
Germany’s measure to promote the use of insulating materials                    R 105/2002-4;
produced from renewable raw materials is to be considered
compatible with the EC Treaty. The Commission reached this                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
decision on the basis that, although the measure constitutes
aid, it is, under Article 87(3)(c) EC, compatible with the EC
Treaty since the promoted insulating materials produced from
renewable raw materials clearly have advantages for the
environment over ‘traditional’ insulating materials.                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Community trade mark          Word mark ‘Cloppenburg’ —
The applicant submits that the decision infringes essential               sought:                       Application No 1920685 in
procedural requirements. The Commission should have                                                     respect of Class 35 — retail trade
initiated the preliminary examination procedure in accordance                                           services.
with Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of the regulation on
State aid procedure, since it encountered objectively serious             Decision         contested    Examiner’s refusal to register.
difficulties in assessing the measure.                                    before the Board of
                                                                          Appeal:
Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 87 EC. The Com-               Decision of the Board of      Dismissal    of   the   applicant’s
mission’s decision that the measure is compatible with the                Appeal:                       appeal.
common market under Article 87(3)(c) EC because of clear
advantages for the environment was based upon insufficient                Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
findings of fact.                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 (1).
Finally the applicant claims that the decision unjustifiably              (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
disadvantages those insulating materials designated by the                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Commission as ‘traditional’, especially mineral-based insulating
materials, but also insulating materials produced from renew-
able raw materials which do not carry the quality mark
‘natureplus’. The decision thus infringes the principles of
proportionality and non-discrimination and therefore infringes
fundamental principles of Community law.
                                                                          Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Miles Hand-
                                                                          elsgesellschaft International mbH against the Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs)
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Peek & Clop-                                                 (Case T-385/03)
penburg KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/20)
                         (Case T-379/03)                                  (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                          (2004/C 35/19)                                                          submitted: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            18 November 2003 by Miles Handelsgesellschaft International
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   mbH, Norderstedt (Germany), represented by A. Deutsch,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    lawyer. Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesell-
17 November 2003 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf                     schaft mbH, Berlin, was also a party to the proceedings before
(Germany), represented by U. Hildebrandt, lawyer.                         the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 35/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         24 November 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn (Germ-
—     annul the contested decision of the Second Board of                any), represented by D. Marschollek, lawyer. Client Logic
      Appeal of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2);                    GmbH & Co. KG, Oberhausen (Germany), was also a party to
                                                                         the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
—     order the Office to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Biker Miles Motorrad Handels-              —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
munity trade mark:            und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH                    7 January 2003, notified on 26 September 2003, (Case
                                                                               R 80/2001-4);
Community trade mark          Coloured word/figurative mark
sought:                       ‘BIKER MILES’ for goods in Class-
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                              es 9 (replacement parts and
                              accessories for two-wheeled
                              vehicles etc.), 12 (motorcycles
                              etc.) and 25 (equipment and cloth-
                              ing for the riders of two-wheeled
                              vehicles etc.) — Application               Pleas in law and main arguments
                              No 1 237 734.
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                         Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                         munity trade mark:
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark ‘MIL-             Community trade mark          Word mark ‘DTel’ for goods and
opposition.                   ES’ for goods in Class 25.                 sought:                       services in Classes 9 (electric
                                                                                apparatus etc.), 37 (construction
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal to register the mark                                             etc.), 38 (telecommunications
sition Division:              sought.                                                                  etc.) and 42 (computer program-
                                                                                ming services etc.) — Application
Decision of the Board of      The appeal was granted and the                                           No 1 176 639.
Appeal:                       opposition rejected.
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of         Proprietor of mark or         Client Logic GmbH & Co. KG.
                              Regulation No 40/94 (1).                   sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                         sition proceedings:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘TETEL’
                                                                         opposition.                   for goods and services in Class-
                                                                                es 9, 37, 38 and 42.
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition.
                                                                         sition Division:
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Deutsche
Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                   Decision of the Board of      Partial refusal of the application
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                     Appeal:                       to register, in respect of goods
                                                                                and services in Class 38. Dismissal
                         (Case T-386/03)                                                               of the remainder of the appeal.
                          (2004/C 35/21)                                 Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and
                                                                                (b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1).
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)                               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the


title: Case C-522/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2010 — Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg (Germany) lodged on 9 November 2010 — Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
   (Case C-522/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Würzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Doris Reichel-Albert

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as precluding an arrangement in one Member State whereby child-raising periods completed in another Member State of the European Union are to be recognised as such periods completed in the former Member State only if the child-raising parent was habitually resident abroad with the child and paid compulsory contributions during the raising or immediately before the birth of the child because of employment or self-employment there or, where spouses or partners were resident abroad together, if the spouse or partner of the child-raising parent paid such compulsory contributions or did not do so solely because he or she was a person as referred to in Paragraph 5(1) and (4) of Sozialgesetzbuch VI (Social Code VI; ‘SGB VI’) or was exempted from compulsory insurance pursuant to Paragraph 6 SGB VI (Paragraphs 56(3), second and third sentences; 57; 249 SGB VI)?

               2.

               Is Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted, despite its wording, as meaning that, in exceptional cases, child-raising periods must be taken into account even where there has been no employment or self-employment if such a period would not otherwise be taken into account under the appropriate legislation either in the competent Member State or in another Member State in which the person was habitually resident while raising the children?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 284, p. 1.


title: Case T-440/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — BT Telecommunications v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Error of assessment)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — BT Telecommunications v Council
   (Case T-440/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 034/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BT Telecommunications PUE (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkutė Pavan, A. Smaliukas, E. Matulionyte and T. Milašauskas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern BT Telecommunications PUE;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it concerns Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BT Telecommunications;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-20/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/29

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-20/06)
   (2006/C 60/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/102/EC of 5 October 2004 amending Annexes II, III, IV and V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2004/102 expired on 28 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 309, p. 9


title: Case C-472/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of that court of 9 September 1999 in the case of CLEAN CAR Autoservice GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna and (2) the Republic of Austria

text:
19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/23
    Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 3 June 1990           Pleas in law and main arguments
    on package travel, package holidays and package tours (1)
    so far as concerns passenger shipping companies, the               Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), a
    Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    that directive;                                                    each Member State to which it is addressed. A Member State
                                                                       must adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure the effective
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        application of directives, in accordance with the objectives
                                                                       pursed by them, and may not plead provisions, practices or
                                                                       circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        justify a failure to comply with its obligations or time-limits
                                                                       under those directives.
The Greek authorities announced that they would amend
Article 7 of the Presidential Decree so that the obligation to         It is undisputed that the Italian Republic was to provide the
insure laid down therein would also cover passenger shipping           Commission with the information required under Article 8(3)
companies.                                                             of Directive 91/689/EEC in the manner prescribed by Decision
                                                                       96/302/EC.
The Commission considers that it is the task of the Greek              It has failed to do so, nor does the Commission consider itself
authorities to undertake in good time the procedures necessary         to have properly received the information following the
in order for the provisions of the directive at issue to be            reasoned opinion.
transposed fully into Greek law.
                                                                       The Commission therefore finds that the Italian Republic has
The Commission states that up until now the Hellenic Republic          failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
has failed to adopt the appropriate measures for the full
incorporation into Greek law of Article 7 of Directive
90/314/EEC so far as concerns shipping companies.                      (1) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazard-
                                                                           ous waste. OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996.
(1) OJ No L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                       für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of that court of
                                                                       9 September 1999 in the case of CLEAN CAR Autoservice
Action brought on 7 December 1999 by the Commission                    GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna and (2) the Republic
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                             of Austria
                         (Case C-469/99)                                                          (Case C-472/99)
                          (2000/C 47/37)                                                           (2000/C 47/38)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 December
                                                                       Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       9 September 1999, received at the Court Registry on
represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                       9 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                                                                       CLEAN CAR Autoservice GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                       and (2) the Republic of Austria, on the following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Where, as in the present case, a Member State (Austria) has
                                                                       not prescribed any national rules enabling national courts to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decide and to award or, as the case may be, to apportion, in
                                                                       relation to the parties to the proceedings, the costs of a
— Declare that, by failing to provide the Commission with              reference for a preliminary ruling, how is Article 104(5) of the
    the information required under Article 8(3) of Council             Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European
    Directive 91/689/EEC (1), in the format established in             Communities (1) to be interpreted?
    Decision 96/302/EC (2), the Italian Republic has failed to
    fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/689/EEC
    and the EC Treaty;                                                 (1) OJ C 65 of 6 March 1999, p. 30.
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-96/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2017 — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2017 — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
   (Case C-96/17)
   (2017/C 151/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

      Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the remedy provided by the legal system when a disciplinary dismissal is held to be unlawful and, in particular, the remedy under Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Law on the basic regulations relating to public servants), to be regarded as covered by the concept of ‘employment conditions’ under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work (1) concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

               2.

               Would a situation, such as that provided for in Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Law on the basic regulations relating to public servants), in which the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker, when that dismissal is held to be wrongful, that is to say unlawful, always requires the reinstatement of the worker, but when the worker is subject to an indefinite or temporary contract performing the same duties as a permanent worker permits that worker not to be reinstated in return for compensation, be discriminatory under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

               3.

               Would unequal treatment be justified in the same situation as in the question above, not in the light of the Directive but of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ 1999, L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-403/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 16 July 2013 — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 16 July 2013 — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection
   (Case C-403/13)
   2013/C 274/24
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lisa Kelly

      Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where an employee resident in Member State A and who has been in insurable employment in that State for just short of three years spends the last six months of her insurable employment in Member State B, should that person’s subsequent claim for social security payments on account of illness be governed by (i) the law of Member State B for the purposes of Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation 883/2004/EC (1)? or, (ii) by the law of the Member State A where she is resident for the purposes of Article 11(3)(e)?

               2.

               Is it relevant to a consideration of Question 1 that if the law of Member State B is held to be the governing law, then the employee in question is ineligible for any social security payments, whereas this would not be the case if the law of the Member State where she is resident (Member State A) were held to apply?’

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
   OJ L 166, p. 1


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-570/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/38

         Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
   (Case T-570/13)
   2013/C 367/69
   Language of the Procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant the measures of inquiry requested;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages as assessed in the application, increased as appropriate;

               —

               order that the information provided in Annexes A.23 and A.24 be treated as confidential;

               —

               direct the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application seeks compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the irregularities on the part of the Commission in the tender procedure ‘Establishing a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) “Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability”’ (AGRI-2012-EIP-01).
   In support of its action the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               Error of assessment of the tender and infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to award criterion No 1.
               The applicant claims in that regard that:

                           —

                           the evaluation committee erred in concluding that Agriconsulting did not develop the communication strategy aspect, given that the applicant’s technical tender contained six pages in which that aspect is developed at length;

                           —

                           the evaluation committee infringed the principle of equal treatment since it assessed that the communication strategy of the applicant’s tender under criterion No 1, even though, in the case of the tender submitted by the successful tenderer, the evaluation committee assessed the communication strategy under criterion No 2.

               2.

               Error of assessment of the tender and misinterpretation and misapplication of award criterion No 2.
               The applicant claims in that regard that:

                           —

                           the evaluation committee erred in holding that there was an obligation to ensure the presence of a number of permanent staff and that, therefore, in the absence of such, it had to give a negative assessment to the applicant’s tender;

                           —

                           the evaluation committee failed to assess the external experts’ input.

               3.

               Error of assessment of the tender, breach of the rules concerning contracts financed by European resources and breach of the tender rules in relation to award criterion No 3.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee carried out a fresh assessment of the elements which had been the subject of the assessment in the previous selection stage, breaching, in so doing, the limits and the rules which govern the selection stage and contract award stage.

               4.

               Infringement, in relation to award criterion No 3, of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to use award criteria which are not confused with the tender selection criteria.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, if award criteria No 3 permits an assessment based on staffing numbers alone, such a criterion would be disproportionate and inadequate with respect to the objective of identifying the most economically advantageous tender and would infringe the obligation to use, for the purpose of the comparative evaluation of the tenders, award criteria which are not confused with the administrative selection criteria for the tender.

               5.

               Infringement, in relation to award criterion No 3, of the principle of the separation of the various stages of a public tendering procedure which provides that the most economically advantageous tender should be awarded the contract.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee, having used information gathered in the context of the financial evaluation stage of the tender to amend the assessment made at the earlier qualitative evaluation stage of the applicant’s tender, infringed the principle of the separation of the various stages of a public tendering procedure which applies the method of awarding the contract to the most economically advantageous tender.

               6.

               Manifest error of assessment of the tender in relation to the award criterion No 3 in so far as it concerns the capability to complete the main tasks.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, contrary to that set out in the tender specifications, the evaluation committee held that the involvement, however limited, of the team leader and his deputy in supervising and checking the additional tasks would make it impossible to complete the main tasks.

               7.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an abnormally low tender.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee identified an anomaly by reference only to one part of the tasks (the additional tasks), without however assessing whether that ‘anomaly’ rendered, de facto, the entirety of the applicant’s tender unreliable or inconsistent with respect to the implementation the subject-matter of the contract.

               8.

               Arbitrariness and irrationality of the parameters used when applying the concept of an abnormally low tender, and infringement of the adversarial principle and the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the evaluation committee adopted arbitrary and unjustified criteria to calculate the degree of abnormality of the applicant’s offer, without taking in account the applicant’s organisational and commercial capabilities


title: Case C-484/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Whether it is possible to obtain a number of supplementary protection certificates on the basis of just one patent)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
   (Case C-484/12) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Whether it is possible to obtain a number of supplementary protection certificates on the basis of just one patent)
   2014/C 52/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgetown University

      Defendant: Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 3(c) and 14(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions under which a certificate may be obtained — Basic patent in force covering several products — Whether or not there is a right to a certificate for each product.

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a basic patent and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product consisting of a combination of several active ingredients, the patent holder has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that combination of active ingredients, protected by that patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, Article 3(c) of that regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the proprietor from also obtaining a supplementary protection certificate for one of those active ingredients which, individually, is also protected as such by that patent.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.13.


title: Case T-295/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/19

         Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)
   (Case T-295/08)
   (2008/C 247/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: CPS Color Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fema Farben und Putze GmbH (Ettlingen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEMACOLOR’ for goods in class 2

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 104 061 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2; international trade mark registration No 691 406 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in law in determining that the conflicting trade marks are confusingly similar, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.


title: Case C-501/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2014  — EL-EM-2001 Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2014 — EL-EM-2001 Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-501/14)
   (2015/C 046/29)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EL-EM-2001 Ltd.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an infringement, the measure necessary in order to implement a penalty stipulated and applied by the Member State may only be applied to the person who has committed the infringement?
               To put it in different terms: in the light of Article 18 of Regulation No 561/2006/EC, is it a breach of the obligation upon Member States pursuant to the first sentence of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC if national legislation provides that a measure which is necessary in order to implement a penalty stipulated and applied by the Member State may be applied to a (natural or legal) person who has not been found by means of an administrative procedure to have committed an infringement?

               2)

               If the answer to Question I is negative, should Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC be taken to mean that, where a measure is taken against a third (natural or legal) person on account of an infringement by a different person, despite the fact that it has not been established that the third person committed the infringement, the measure constitutes a penalty applied to him irrespective of the name given to it?

               3)

               If the answer to Question II is affirmative, is the prohibition on subjecting an infringement to more than one assessment, as laid down in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC, breached by national legislation which makes it possible, in order to implement a penalty applied because of an infringement of rules by the driver of a vehicle, to impose on a different (natural or legal) person something described as a measure which, however, in terms of its content, is a penalty?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85; OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.


title: Case C-57/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-57/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 22/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-370/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — France v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Wine sector — Restructuring aid and conversion aid — Definition of eligible area)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — France v Commission
   (Case T-370/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Wine sector - Restructuring aid and conversion aid - Definition of eligible area)
   (2008/C 272/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and A. Colomb, and subsequently by G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 199, p. 84), inasmuch as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure in respect of a correction relating to determination of the areas eligible for aid for restructuring and conversion of vineyards for the 2001-2003 accounting period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2005/579/EC of 20 July 2005, Commission Decision of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) inasmuch as it excludes from Community financing the sum of EUR 13 519 122,05 in respect of a correction relating to determination of the areas eligible for aid for restructuring and conversion of vineyards for the 2001-2003 accounting period.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case T-503/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2009 — Rundpack v OHIM (Representation of a tumbler)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2009 — Rundpack v OHIM (Representation of a tumbler)
   (Case T-503/08) (1)

   2009/C 153/97

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-487/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/16

         Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-487/08)
   (2009/C 19/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal)

      Defendant(s): Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by giving different treatment to dividends distributed to foreign and domestic shareholders, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under the Spanish legislation, companies which have a substantial holding in the capital of a branch may deduct from their taxable income 100 % of the gross dividend received from that holding. In order to enjoy this facility, parent companies resident in Spain must have had a holding of at least 5 % of the capital of the resident branch of the company for an uninterrupted period of at least one year. Dividends which qualify for the application of that facility are exempt from deduction at source.
   In order to enjoy that exemption, parent companies not resident in Spain were required to have a holding of 20 %, which was reduced to 15 % from 1 January 2007 and will be reduced to 10 % from 1 January 2009. Thus, unlike parent companies resident in Spain, parent companies from other Member States of the EC and Member States party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which have a holding in the capital of at least 5 % but lower than the limits mentioned have to pay tax in respect of the dividends paid by the branch.
   The Commission takes the view that by imposing a requirement of a larger holding in the capital for parent companies which are not resident than is imposed on resident companies in order to enjoy the exemption from tax for dividends distributed by the branches in Spain the difference in treatment under the Spanish legislation constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement. The Commission can see no justification for this additional fiscal burden which falls on parent companies from other Member States and the Member States of the EEA.


18.3.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 79/43
       Removal from the register of Case T-196/98 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-208/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/91)                                                             (2000/C 79/93)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 26 November 1999, the President of the Third                  By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of Case T-196/98: Eduardo Peña Abizanda and Others v                     Case T-208/99, Martin Bangemann v Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Union.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-101/99 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-324/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/92)                                                             (2000/C 79/94)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 January 2000, the President of the Second                  By order of 11 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-101/99: Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European                   Case T-324/99: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants
Communities.                                                              pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI)
                                                                          and Rosario De Simone v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-10/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — J.B.G.T. Miljoen; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2014 — J.B.G.T. Miljoen; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-10/14)
   2014/C 129/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: J.B.G.T. Miljoen

      Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case such as the present, in which dividend tax was withheld on a dividend payment by the source State, be extended to the income tax payable on the dividend income, against which, in the case of residents, the dividend tax is set off?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the assessment as to whether the effective tax burden for a non-resident is heavier than the tax burden for a resident, should a comparison be made between the Netherlands dividend tax withheld in respect of the non-resident and the Netherlands income tax payable by a resident, calculated in respect of the flat-rate income which, in the year in which the dividends were received, is attributable to the total holding of investment shares in Netherlands companies, or does European Union law require that a different standard of comparison be taken into account?


title: Case T-14/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/22

         Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-14/11)
   2011/C 80/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2010 implicitly refusing access to Commission documents relating to the procedure initiated by the Commission in Case COMP/38.866 concerning a cartel in the European market for animal feed phosphates.
   In support of the action the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Commission did not reply to the confirmatory application for access to its decision or decisions fixing the probable ranges of fines as regards the addressees of Decision C(2010) 5004 Final, which was adopted as a result of settlement proceedings.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission relied, during the examination procedure in respect of the application for access to the documents, on the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to justify the refusal of access. The applicants submit that the documents requested:

                           —

                           are not opinions, but decisions in respect of which it is not established that communication of them may seriously undermine the decision-making process;

                           —

                           do not contain any sensitive commercial data;

                           —

                           have no connection with inspections, investigations and audits.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/66

         Removal from the register of Case T-281/97 (1)

   (2004/C 94/164)

      Language of the Case: English

   By order of 30 January 2004 the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-281/97:Milk Products Holdings (Europe) Limited and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.


title: Case F-84/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/35

         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-84/12)
   2012/C 295/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor of that committee.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 denying the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 24 March 2012 constitution a response to the claim submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages with late-payment and compensatory interest at the rate of 6.75% in respect of the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-372/09: Action brought on 21 September 2009 — Visti Beheer BV v OHIM — Meister (GOLD MEISTER)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/55

         Action brought on 21 September 2009 — Visti Beheer BV v OHIM — Meister (GOLD MEISTER)
   (Case T-372/09)
   2009/C 282/104
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Visti Beheer BV (Rotterdam, Nethrerlands) (represented by: A. Herbertz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Meister + Co. AG (Wollerau, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 26 June 2009 (Case R 1465/2008-1) so that it annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in opposition procedure B 1 134 651 and grants the Community trade mark application No 5 243 209 for the contested goods;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘GOLD MEISTER’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 35, 37, 40 and 42 (Application No 5 243 209)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meister + Co. AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark No 39 534 716 and the Community mark No 2 607 737‘MEISTER’ for goods in Class 14, whereas the opposition is directed solely against the registration for goods in that Class

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T-630/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014  — Primo Valore v Commission

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/27

         Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Primo Valore v Commission
   (Case T-630/14)
   2014/C 361/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Primo Valore (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 999/2001 (1), Regulation No 178/2002 (2), and the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, by refraining from calling upon the Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 5a(1) to (4) of Decision 1999/468/EC, to vote on a draft measure to review point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001, pursuant to which specified risk material originating from Member States of the European Union must be removed and destroyed even if those Member States have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) risk.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the last sentence of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 999/2001 (in conjunction with Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 178/2002), the second sentence of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that, pursuant to the provisions cited above, the Commission is obliged to review the temporary derogation introduced by point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 and to submit to the Scrutiny Committee, following the procedure outlined in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC, a draft measure to amend that annex. This must be done in order to ensure compliance with the international health standards adopted by the [International Office of Epizootic Diseases (‘OIE’)], which do not call for a list of specified risk material from countries which — like Italy — have been recognised as countries with a negligible risk or as countries whose risk level is the lowest possible under the international classification system adopted by the OIE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination, the second sentence of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that, by virtue of the principle and provisions cited above, when the OIE recognised certain Member States of the European Union — Italy included — as countries with a negligible BSE risk (namely, May 2008, May 2011, May 2012 and May 2013), the Commission was required to update its legislation in the light of that new information and to review the derogation provided for in point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 in order to ensure observance of the principle of non-discrimination: first, the derogation in question treats differently similar situations: that of producers in Member States and that of producers in third countries which have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE risk. Secondly, it treats identically different situations: that of producers in Member States which have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE risk and that of producers in Member States which have not received such recognition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that, by virtue of the principle and provisions cited above, following the OIE’s recognition of certain Member States of the European Union as countries with a negligible BSE risk, the Commission was under an obligation to update its legislation in the light of that new information and to review the temporary derogation provided for in point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 in order to ensure observance of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, it should be noted (inter alia) that the Commission’s decision not to review the derogation provided for in point 2 of that annex is not suitable for attaining the objective of protecting health on which it is relying.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).


title: Case T-282/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — Tailor v OHIM (Representation of a left pocket) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a left pocket — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2009 — Tailor v OHIM (Representation of a left pocket)
   (Case T-282/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a left pocket - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   2009/C 153/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche and F. Schiwek, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2007 (Case R 669/2006-1), concerning registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a left pocket.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly devoid of any legal basis;

               2.

               Orders Tom Tailor GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-265/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF) (Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Consumer protection — Combined offers involving at least one financial service — Prohibition — Exceptions)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)
   (Case C-265/12) (1)

   (Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Combined offers involving at least one financial service - Prohibition - Exceptions)
   2013/C 260/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Citroën Belux NV

      Defendant: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National consumer-protection legislation which prohibits generally, subject to exceptions exhaustively set out, any combined offer containing at least one financial service

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted, as must Article 56 TFEU, as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition — save in the cases exhaustively listed by the national legislation — of combined offers made to consumers where at least one of the components of those offers is a financial service.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


No C 229/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 9 . 95
        Removal from the register of Case C-6/95 ( )                  preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches
                          ( 95/C 229/41 )                             Landessozialgericht ): Aororita Hanßen and Bundesanstalt
                                                                      für Arbeit .
By order of 17 May 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/95 ( reference for a                    H OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 July 1995                                                      of 19 June 1995
     in Case T-36/93 : Girish Ojha v. Commission of the               in Case T-107/94 : Christina Kik v. Council of the
                   European Communities f 1 )                         European' Union and Commission of the European
 (Officials — Posting outside the Community —                                                 Communities (*)
Reassignment to the seat of the Commission — Action for                (Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
   annulment — Compensation for non-material damage)                     — Languages — Manifest inadmissibility of the action)
                           ( 95/C 229/42 )                                                      ( 95/C 229/43 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
 In Case T-36/93 : Girish Ojha , an official of the Commission
 of the European Communities, residing at Korbeek-Lo                  In Case T-107/94 : Christina Kik, lawyer and trade mark
 ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels          agent, represented by Goosen L. Kooy, of The Hague Bar,
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers
 of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of            of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Therese, v. Council of
 the European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves                     the European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Guus
 Vieira, Joseph Griesmar and Denis Waelbroeck ) —                      Houttuin ) and Commission of the European Communities
 application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the          ( Agent: Pieter Van Nuffel ), supported by Kingdom of Spain
 Commission of 20 October 1992 reassigning the applicant,              ( Agents: Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo
 with effect from 1 November 1992, from the Commission's               Diaz ) — application for the annulment of Article 115 of
 delegation in Dacca ( Bangladesh ), where he had been posted          Council Regulation ( EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 , in
 since August 1991 , to the seat of the Commission in Brussels         that it excludes Dutch as a language of the Office for
 and, second, for an order requiring the Commission to pay             Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
 to the applicant the sum of Bfrs 500 000 by way of                    designs ), and for an order prohibiting the adoption of
 compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                    measures enabling the Office to begin its work — the Court
 suffered by him as a result of that decision — the Court of           of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz
 First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz              Vilaça ( President ) and H. Kirschner and V. Tiili, Judges;
 Vilaça , President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,           H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 June 1995 , the
 Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July            operative part of which is as follows:
  1995 , in which it:
                                                                        I. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
  1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                        2 . the applicant is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay
  2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.
       half of the costs of applicant, who is to bear the other             The intervener is ordered to bear its own costs .
       half.
                                                                        (M OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
  (») OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .


title: Case T-239/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Pathé Distribution SAS v Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (Arbitration clause — Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Pathé Distribution SAS v Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-239/07) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 171/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pathé Distribution SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Deprez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (represented by: H. Monet, agent, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency of 8 May 2007 terminating contract No 2006-09120304D1021001FD1507 and, second, an order that the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 9 737 in execution of the said contract.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-470/08: Action brought on 23 October 2008 — Commission v Eurgit and Cirese

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/40

         Action brought on 23 October 2008 — Commission v Eurgit and Cirese
   (Case T-470/08)
   (2008/C 327/70)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer, A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, agents)

      Defendants:Associazione dei Giuristi Italiani per le Comunità Europee — Eurgit (Rome, Italy) and Vania Cirese (Rome, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to reimburse the principal sum due of EUR 7 142, together with default interest at the statutory interest rate applicable in Belgium with effect from 11 November 2002 until full payment of the sums due;

               —

               order EURGIT and Mrs Vania Cirese, both jointly and severally, to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought by the European Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC for an order that EURGIT and Mrs Cirese, jointly and severally, reimburse the sum of EUR 7 412, together with default interest, being the advance paid by the applicant to EURGIT to carry out project No 97/GR/098, financed in the framework of the GROTIUS programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners.
   The Commission submits that, under paragraph 7 of the ‘statement by the beneficiary of a financial contribution’, the beneficiary undertakes, where items of expenditure incurred cannot justify the use of the financial contribution received, to reimburse, upon its request, sums already paid which are not justified.
   Since EURGIT has failed, within the prescribed period, to justify the use of the sum advanced by the Commission, there can be no doubt that the defendant and any person acting in its name or on its behalf is liable for the reimbursement of the advance paid.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2000 in Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
7.4.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/19
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
J. Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden, v Commission of the European                                              INSTANCE
Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision of the selection board not to                                           of 8 December 2000
admit the applicant to the written tests in open competition
COM/A/12/98 and, second, for an order requiring the defend-
                                                                            in Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof and Others v
ant to pay damages — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
28 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                                ation — State aid — Prima facie case — Urgency)
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/34)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), BP Direct vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), and Actomat BV, established in
                                                                            Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by M. van Empel and
                                                                            M. Smeets, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Harles, Arendt &
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
                                                                            Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra), v Com-
                        of 16 October 2000                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            H.M.H. Speyart) — application for partial suspension of
in Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission                         operation of the Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of
               of the European Communities (1)                              20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
                                                                            for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance made an order on 8 December 2000, the operative
                          (2001/C 108/33)                                   part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA, established at
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
Venice Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet,
A. Abate and E. Cappelli) — application for annulment of
the Commission’s decision C(1999) 1524 of 2 June 1999                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
concerning State aid granted by the Italian Government to                                                INSTANCE
Seleco SpA, inasmuch as it considers the applicant to be jointly
and severally liable to repay that part of the aid which has not                                 of 14 December 2000
been recovered from Seleco — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                 in Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging
President, and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and                      voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Com-
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            mission of the European Communities
16 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case             (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
      T-195/99 SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission in favour of the               ation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank
      Court of Justice, in order that the latter Court may rule on the                           guarantee — Urgency)
      application for annulment.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/35)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
                                                                            Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied, established in The


title: Case C-60/09: Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri
   (Case C-60/09) (1)

   2011/C 63/44
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.