title: Case C-73/02 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 109/35
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          I.    set aside the judgment, on the ground that it applied
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Community law wrongly and inconsistently, in so far as
                                                                                it confirms the decision of the Commission of 21 January
(a)   Failure to implement Article 8(6) of Directive 97/66.                     1998 No 98/247/ECSC to impose a fine on the appellant
                                                                                despite the fact that it belonged to the KTS Group;
      Article 6(6) of Decree No 171/98 only partially
      implements Article 8(6) of the directive in question, since
      it makes no reference to the obligation to inform the               In the alternative:
      public of the possibilities set out in Articles 8(1), (2), (3)
      and (4) of that directive to prevent the presentation of
      CLI (‘calling line identification’) of incoming calls if CLI        II.   set aside the judgment, on the ground that it misapplied
      has been eliminated, and of the possibility of eliminating                Community law, in so far as it confirms Article 1 of
      the presentation of connected line identification to the                  the decision of the Commission of 21 January 1998
      calling user.                                                             No 98/247/ECSC, according to which the infringement
                                                                                of the rules of competition imputed to AST is held to
(b) Failure to implement Article 9(b) of Directive 97/66.                       have continued until the date of the decision itself;
      Article 9(b) of the directive places an obligation on the
      Member States to ensure that there are procedures                   III. set aside the judgment, on the ground that it infringed
      governing the elimination of the presentation of calling                  the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
      line identification on a per-line basis for organisations                 in so far as it does not uphold the appellant’s request that
      dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a                  the fine be reduced by 40 % in view of the appellant’s
      Member State, for the purpose of answering such calls.                    cooperation in the course of the procedure;
      The Italian legislation does not appear to have implement-
      ed that provision.
                                                                          in any event,
(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.
                                                                          IV. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered
on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court                     The appellant claims that the contested judgment should be
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                   set aside on the following grounds:
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen
Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Com-
            mission of the European Communities                           —     erroneous and inconsistent application of Community
                                                                                law by imposing a fine on AST despite the fact that AST
                                                                                belongs to the KTS group, which was subject to a fixed-
                         (Case C-73/02 P)                                       sum fine;
                         (2002/C 109/60)
                                                                          —     misapplication of Community law in finding that the
                                                                                infringement of the competition rules by AST was
                                                                                continuous;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and                      —     breach of the principle of equaltreatment and non-
T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai                         discrimination in the reduction applied to the fine in
Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Com-                          consideration of the appellant’s cooperation during the
munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         procedure.
European Communities on 8 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, represented by Giulia Di Tommaso
and Andrea Giardina, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.


title: Case T-258/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 369/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the Appeal intro-             —     It submits that the Commission has assessed the gravity
Appeal:                        duced by Alcon Universal Ltd.                    of the infringement, as it is required to do so under
                                                                                Article 12(2) of Council Regulation No 3975/87 (1),
Grounds of claim:              Failure by the Board of Appeal to                incorrectly and that the categorisation of the infringement
                               recognise the actions undertaken                 under the Commission Guidelines on Fines (2) as ‘very
                               by Alcon Universal Ltd. to restrain              serious’ rather than ‘serious’ is therefore incorrect.
                               the use of the trade mark by other               Although the nature of the infringement as ‘market
                               parties.                                         sharing’ is not disputed the Commission’s assessment of
                                                                                the actual impact and the geographic scope of that impact
                                                                                are contested. The Commission’s calculation and use of
                                                                                the term ‘affected turnover’ is also disputed.
                                                                          —     It argues that the Commission has not proved that the
                                                                                infringement covered the period from 5 September 1989
                                                                                until 15 February 2001.
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia
Airlines System AB against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities                                  —     In relation to co-operation and leniency, it maintains that
                                                                                a number of factors that should have been taken into
                                                                                consideration by the Commission have either not been
                         (Case T-241/01)                                        considered in the Decision or, if they have been con-
                                                                                sidered, the Commission’s assessment is incorrect.
                         (2001/C 369/23)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987
                                                                              laying downthe procedure for the application of the rules on
                                                                              competition to undertaking in the air transport sector (OJ L 374,
                                                                              p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavian                        Treaty (OJ C9 1998, p. 3).
Airlines System AB, represented by Mr Morten Kofmann of
Kromann Reumert, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      judicially review the calculation of the fine imposed on
       the applicant by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
The subject of the application is the Commission Decision
C(2001) 1987 final of 18 July 2001, relating to proceedings
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty ant Article 53 of the                                      (Case T-258/01)
Agreement on the European Economic Area (case COMP.D.2.
37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and case COMP.D.2 37.386 —
Sun-Air vs. SAS and Maersk Air). In this Decision the                                              (2001/C 369/24)
Commission states that the applicant and Maesk Air A/S have
infringed the competition rules by agreeing to share markets
between them by Maersk Air withdrawing from the Copenha-                                      (Language of the case: French)
gen-Stockholm route and the applicant withdrawing from
the Copenhangen-Venice and Billund-Frankfurt routes, thus
leaving operation exclusively to the other party.
The applicant does not object to the Commission’s finding                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
that it has infringed the competition rules. It merely exercises          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
its right to subject the Commission’s calculation of the fine to          European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveil-
judicial review.                                                          lard, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.12.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
      on 25 June 2001 and notified to the applicant on 3 July            The applicant contests the decision adopted in compliance
      2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on            with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
      19 March 2001 against the disciplinary decision of                 T-202/99 annulling the decision of the Commission not to
      19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the                     promote the applicant in the 1998 promotions procedure.
      disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps, pursuant
      to Article 86(2)(D) of the Staff Regulations;                      In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principle of equal treatment, as well as manifest error of
                                                                         assessment and breach of the principle of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his application, the applicant claims infringement
of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error
of assessment. According to the applicant, the documents
attributed to him in the context of the award of a contract for                 Removal from the Register of Case T-313/00 (1)
the security of Commission buildings were issued by a
hierarchical superior who was perfectly well aware of the                                         (2001/C 369/26)
situation. Accordingly, those documents cannot be attributed
to the applicant.                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 13 June 2001, the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities (Single Judge: M. Forwood), has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-313/00,
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe
                                                                         Sjoerd Feenstra v Commission of the European Communities.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-264/01)                                  (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                        (2001/C 369/25)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-90/01 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2001/C 369/27)
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe,
residing in Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël                                 (Language of the case: German)
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              By order of 6 July 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                  has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-90/01,
      18 December 2000 not to promote the applicant to                   Christine Janush v European Central Bank.
      Grade A in the 1998 promotions procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.


15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/63
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the                       Removal from the register of Case T-30/98 (1)
Commission infringed both Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, since it failed to take into                                    (2002/C 144/122)
account, or incorrectly assessed, the nature and actions of the
applicant undertaking and did not establish that the applicant
participated in the alleged meetings or the alleged collusive                               (Language of the Case: English)
arrangements within the Spanish market or in the agreements
and concerted practices as a whole, which are described in the
contested decision.
                                                                          By order of 16 January 2002 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-30/98:
It is stated in that regard that the applicant is a small family-         Dr. Peter Stott v Conseil de l’Union européenne and Com-
style undertaking which distributes and processes carbonless              mission of the European Communities.
copy paper and that it neither manufactured nor exported to
markets other than the Spanish market during the period of
the infringement. Furthermore, attention is drawn to its                  (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
modest economic size and the limited scale of its business as
compared with the other parties alleged to be involved.
As regards the fine imposed, it is submitted that quantification
thereof involved:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-370/00 (1)
—     breach of the principles of proportionality and equal
      treatment;                                                                                (2002/C 144/123)
—     incorrect determination of the period of infringement;                                (Language of the Case: English)
—     failure to take account of the mitigating circumstances
      attendant upon the applicant’s situation.
                                                                          By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            T-370/00: N.V. Master Foods S. A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/121)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-42/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/124)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-42/01:
European Communities.
                                                                          Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-43/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Elementis e.a. v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/51

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — Elementis e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-43/10)
   2010/C 100/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Elementis plc, Elementis Holdings Ltd, Elementis UK Ltd and Elementis Services Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Wessely, A. de Brousse, E. Spinelli, lawyers and A. Woods, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 November 2009 No C(2009) 8682 in Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers insofar as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by the applicants associated with payment in whole or in part of the fine;

               —

               take any other measures that the General Court considers to be appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek the annulment, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, of Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009 No C(2009) 8682 in Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers, by which a number of undertakings, including the applicants, were held liable for an infringement of Articles 81 EC (now 101 TFEU) and 53 EEA, by participating in two cartels that affected, respectively, the tin stabilisers sector and the ESBO/esters stabiliser sector throughout the EEA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants are the following:

               First, the applicants submit that the Commission committed an infringement of law in adopting a fining decision against the applicants in breach of the rules on limitation contained in Articles 25(5) and 25(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (hereinafter ‘Regulation No 1/2003’) on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (now 101 and 102 TFEU) (1). According to Article 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, the absolute limitation period beyond which the Commission may not impose sanctions for antitrust violations is 10 years from the date that the infringement ceased. Accordingly, the applicants put forward that the decision taken over 11 years after the end of the applicants’ infringement (2 October 1998) was adopted in violation of the said provision. Further, the applicants submit that the Commission’s position on the legality of the fine despite the expiry of the ten year period rests on its erga omnes interpretation of the suspension of the limitation period provided for in Article 25(6) of Regulation No 1/2003, which, according to the applicants is flawed.

               Second, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence as the excessive duration of the fact-finding phase of the investigation undermined the ability of the applicants to effectively exercise their rights of defence in this procedure.

               Third, the applicants contend that the Commission committed manifest errors in calculating the fine imposed on the applicants by wrongfully basing the fines imposed i) in relation to the pre-joint venture period; and ii) for deterrence, on the turnover achieved by the Akcros joint venture rather than on the turnover achieved by the applicants. According to the applicants, the fines should be reduced by 50 %.

               Fourth, the applicants submit that the Commission committed manifest errors of law and infringed the principles of legal certainty, personal responsibility and proportionality by failing to specify the amount of the fine (imposed jointly and severally on the applicants) which is to be paid by the applicants.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 1999 in Case T-77/96: Garage Massol v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for failure to act brought against the Commission for failure to follow up a complaint - No need to adjudicate - Application for annulment - Application for damages - Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 246/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
                         of 25 March 1999                                 (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Legal Adviser, and Antonio
                                                                          Tanca, then solely Mr Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                          Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
in Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux v Commission of the                    Communities, (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural Español
                   European Communities (1)                               SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain), represented by José
                                                                          Rivas de Andrés, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12
                               merits)                                    Rue Marie Adélaïde — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                          be paid by the applicant to the intervener Furfural Español SA,
                          (1999/C 246/57)                                 following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29
                                                                          January 1998 in Case T-97/95 Sinochem v Council [1998]
                                                                          ECR II-85 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                    (Language of the case: French)                        composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P.
                                                                          Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative part of which
In Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux, an official of the                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian            The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the
Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European                intervener Furfural Español SA is fixed at BEF 331 238.
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant               (1) OJ 1995 C 159.
to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure and, second,
for an order requiring the defendant to pay compensation
amounting to BEF 833 000 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commissions’ decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure;
                                                                                of 29 March 1999
2. Dismisses the claim for damages;
                                                                          in Case T-77/96: Garage Massol v Commission of the
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                (Competition — Action for failure to act brought against
                                                                          the Commission for failure to follow up a complaint —
                                                                          No need to adjudicate — Application for annulment —
                                                                              Application for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/59)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 22 March 1999
                                                                          In Case T-77/96: Garage Massol, established in Fréjairolles
in Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals                         (France), represented by Jean Louis Portolano, of the Aix en
Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European                     Provence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                             Union (1)                                    the Chambers of Nathan Roy, 18 Rue des Glacis, against the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially,
                        (Taxation of costs)                               Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier, subsequently Giuliano
                                                                          Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — application for a declaration that
                                                                          the Commission failed, contrary to the Treaty, to decide on
                          (1999/C 246/58)                                 the compliant lodged by the applicant, pursuant to Article 3(2)
                                                                          of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First
                                                                          regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
                   (Language of the case: English)                        English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87), annulment of an
                                                                          alleged implied rejection by the Commission of that complaint,
In Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals Import &                annulment of an implied refusal to send to the applicant
Export Corporation, established in Beijing, represented by                certain documents in the file and an application seeking
Jean-François Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            compensation for damage suffered — the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 246/29
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President           amended, in so far as the effect of those provisions is to limit
of the Chamber, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,              imports into the Community of sugar originating in the
Registrar, made an order on 29 March 1999, the operative                 overseas countries and territories — the President of the Court
part of which is as follows:                                             of First Instance made an order on 30 April 1999, the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate as to the failure to act.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible.        1. Operation of Article 108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
                                                                            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                     and territories with the European Economic Community, of
                                                                            Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December
                                                                            1997 on rules for issuing import licences for certain products
(1) OJ 1996 C 210.                                                          covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and
                                                                            qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products, and of the
                                                                            Commission Decision of 23 December 1997 (VI/51329) is
                                                                            suspended with respect to Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV.
                                                                         2. Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV is authorised to import into the
                                                                            Community milled sugar originating in the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories (OCT) within the meaning of Article 6 of Annex
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                II to Decision 91/482, in accordance with the conditions set out
                           INSTANCE                                         in that decision in the version in force until 30 November 1997,
                                                                            subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
                        of 30 April 1999
                                                                            — The imports thus authorised are subject to the provisions of
in Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v                               Decision 91/482 applicable before the entry into force of
         Commission of the European Communities                                  Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997
                                                                                amending at mid-term Decision 91/482, and in particular
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —                         the obligation to obtain an import licence in accordance with
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)                             Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88
No 2553/97 — Procedure for interim measures — Prima                              of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules
        facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                           for the application of the system of import and export licences
                                                                                and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, the
                                                                                obligation to obtain an EUR-I certificate, and the obligation
                        (1999/C 246/60)                                          to provide a security of 3 euro/tonne, that security to be
                                                                                released if the import is carried out in accordance with the
                                                                                import licence;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-44/98 R II: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established               — The maximum import volume authorised is 7 500 tonnes
in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by Gerard van der Wal,                         for the period of six months from the date of signature of
Advocate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                       this order;
Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by
Government of Aruba, represented by Pierre V.F. Bos and                     — The sugar of OCT origin imported into the Community must
Marco M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                     be sold at a price at least equal to the intervention price
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter,                      referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)
11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities,                         No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation
(Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by Council of the                            of the markets in the sugar sector;
European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin),
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Mónica López-Monis Gallego) and
French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) — application for,                 — Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV shall be able to import the
first, suspension of operation of the Commission Decision of                     sugar of OCT origin on condition that it provides a security
23 December 1997 (VI/51329) rejecting a request by the                           in the form of a bank guarantee in the sum of USD 28 per
applicant for the issue of import licences in respect of sugar                   tonne of sugar which it wishes to import in accordance with
products pending a decision on the substance by the Court of                     this order. The security must be provided at the latest on the
First Instance and, second, interim measures prohibiting the                     date when the sugar is presented to customs for declaration
Commission pending that decision from applying Commission                        and must cover the tonnage so presented. The amount of the
Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules                          security to be provided per tonne of sugar shall be increased
for issuing import licences for certain products covered by CN                   or reduced:
codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT
originating products (OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26) and/or Article
108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the                       — according to the rise or fall of the intervention price
association of the overseas countries and territories with the                        referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No
European Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1), as                                 1785/81;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 1 February 1995, in the case of Conoco Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-40/95)

text:
No C 119/4          IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 5 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties             Reference for a preliminary ruling from Hogsta Domstolen
Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 1 February            by order of that court of 21 February 1995 in the case of
1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd against Commissioners of                 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag, 2. Ronny Forsberg v.
                     Customs and Excise                                                   MSL Dynamics Ltd
                         (Case C-40/95 )                                                     (Case C-43/95 )
                           95/C 119/07                                                         95/C 119/08 )
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               European Communities by an order of Hogsta Domstolen
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties             ( Supreme Court) of 21 February 1995, which was received
Tribunal, London, of 1 February 1995 , which was received            at the Court Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a
at the Court Registry on 20 February 1995, for a                     preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag,
preliminary ruling in the case of Conoco Ltd against                 2 . Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd on the following
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                question:
questions:
                                                                     Under Paragraph 1 of Law 1980:307 on the obligation for
What, on the proper construction of Article 11A 1 ( a ) and          foreign plaintiffs to logde security for costs of judicial
Article 11C 1 of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC)           proceedings, a foreign legal person who wishes to bring
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the               proceedings before a Swedish court against Swedish
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                    nationals or Swedish legal persons must, at the defendant's
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (*), is       application, lodge security for the costs of the judicial
the taxable amount of a supplier in the situation of Conoco          proceedings which the foreign legal person may be obliged
Ltd ( as found in paragraph 5 of the Preliminary Decision),          to pay by virtue of a final decision in the case . Under
where :                                                              Paragraph 5 of that Law foreign legal persons are exempt
                                                                     from that obligation to the extent that that has been agreed
                                                                     in international agreements binding on Sweden. In the
( a ) the supplier procures the issue of a 'money-off' coupon        Government's notice 1991:112 on certain exemptions from
      which is redeemable at the stated amount (as printed on        the requirement for foreign plaintiffs to lodge security for
      the coupon) by the supplier in favour of a dealer who          costs of judicial proceedings et cetera no reference is made to
      has agreed to participate in a sales promotion                 any such agreement with regard to United Kingdom legal
      campaign;                                                      persons .
                                                                     In an action before the District Court for payment in respect
( b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer        of supply of goods, the Swedish defendants have asked that
      in the course of the sales promotion campaign, must, as        the plaintiff, a United Kingdom company, should lodge
      a matter of contract between the supplier and the              sécurity for costs of judicial proceedings in accordance with
      dealer, be accepted by the dealer from a customer who          the provisions of the abovementioned Law.
      tenders it when purchasing more than a minimum
      specified amount of motor fuel from the dealer,                Is it contrary to the EC Treaty — primarily Article 6
      provided it is a valid coupon;                                 (formerly Article 7) — to require a plaintiff who is a United
                                                                     Kingdom legal person to lodge such a security when no such
(c) the customer on tendering the coupon is entitled as              security can be demanded from Swedish legal persons ?
      against the dealer to a reduction of a stated amount
      below the dealer's normal retail selling price of motor
      fuel;
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
(d ) the supplier has supplied the motor fuel to the dealer at         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      a price determined by an existing supply agreement;
      and                                                                                (Case C-45/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/09
(e) the dealer having accepted the coupon on the sale of the         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
      motor fuel to the customer, presents it to the supplier        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      and is paid the stated amount.                                 24 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, of its Legal
Is the supplier's taxable amount the price determined by the         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
supply agreement or that price less the stated amount?               Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6. 1977, p . 1 .                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 , declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force a
                                                                          provision concerning value added tax which does not


title: Case T-727/16: Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/34

         Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)
   (Case T-727/16)
   (2016/C 462/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration of the word mark ‘REPOWER’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 020 351 designating the European Union

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 80 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-350/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio, Piraeus): Henkel Hellas ABEE v Greek State (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Tax on the capitalisation of undistributed profits)

text:
C 47/4                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
                       of 11 November 1999
                                                                             in Case C-442/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-350/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    from the Arbeidsrechtbank, Bruges): Jozef Van Coile v
the Diikitiko Protodikio, Piraeus): Henkel Hellas ABEE v                                     Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (1)
                           Greek State (1)
                                                                             (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as
 (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                    amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92) — Benefits of
capital — Tax on the capitalisation of undistributed profits)                the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more
                                                                             Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or
                                                                             withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State
                                                                             — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance
                           (2000/C 47/05)
                                                                             with a legal presumption (‘war years presumption’) where
                                                                             no pension right payable under another scheme (including a
                                                                                foreign scheme) is established for them)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-350/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Diikitiko                                           in the European Court Reports)
Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Piraeus,
Greece, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Henkel Hellas ABEE and Greek State                 In Case C-442/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
— on the interpretation of Articles 4 and 7 of Council                       the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeidsrechtbank
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                     (Labour Court), Bruges, (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969            the proceedings pending before that court between Jozef Van
(11), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                 Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen — on the interpretation
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth                       of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                 to self-employed persons and to members of their families
and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advo-                    moving within the Community, as amended by Council
cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                     Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in                      L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
which it has ruled:                                                          D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                             J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and
                                                                             M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive             18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, is to be interpreted as preventing a
tax from being levied on the capitalisation by a capital company of
                                                                             A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings
undistributed profits, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings.
                                                                             under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and
                                                                             1 January 1945, was in employment in respect of which minimum
                                                                             contributions were paid under a social security scheme of the State
                                                                             concerned is to be deemed to have paid sufficient contributions to
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                  establish that he was normally and principally employed throughout
                                                                             the period between the date on which the period of employment
                                                                             established came to an end and 1 January 1946, but under which
                                                                             that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for
                                                                             which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of
                                                                             another State, does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension


title: Case T-112/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Flat-rate financial correction — Deduction of earlier correction)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-112/15) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Flat-rate financial correction - Deduction of earlier correction))
   (2017/C 151/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by I. Chalkias, G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Triantafyllou and A. Marcoulli, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as regards the amounts of correction of EUR 5 007 867.36, of deduction of EUR 2 318 055.75 and of financial impact of EUR 2 689 811.61, concerning expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD Axis 2 (2007-2013, area related measures), for the 2009 financial year, in respect of the weaknesses regarding the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the on-the-spot checks (second pillar, 2008 claim year);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-12/13: Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden/OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/18

         Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden/OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)
   (Case T-12/13)
   2013/C 86/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB (Märsta, Sweden) (represented by: L. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV (Arnhem, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal No R 2085/2011-1 dated, 18 October 2012, (confirming the decision of the Opposition Division Opposition No B 1 717 142, dated 9 August 2011);

               —

               Award the costs in favour of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ARTI’ for goods in class 2 — Community trade mark registration No 9 017 427

      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 in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 753 216 and International Trade mark registration No 872 478 of the word mark ‘ARTITUDE’ for goods in class 2

      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 Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2002 in Case T-310/01: Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment)

text:
C 55/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      —    Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs;
                                                                          3.     In Case T-152/01:
                       of 8 January 2003
                                                                                —    Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank of
                                                                                15 February 2001;
in Joined Cases T-94/01, T-152/01 and T-286/01: Astrid
       Hirsch and Others v European Central Bank ( 1)
                                                                                —    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(Officials — Members of staff of the European Central Bank                       —    Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs;
— Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment — Education
allowance — Refusal to grant it to members of staff not                   4.     In Case T-286/01:
entitled to the expatriation allowance under Article 17 of
     those conditions — Principle of non-discrimination)                         —    Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank of
                                                                                6 June 2001;
                         (2003/C 55/69)                                          —    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                                —    Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
            (Language of the case: German and English)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.06.2001, C 275 of 29.09.2001 and C 31 of
                                                                               02.02.2002.
In Joined Cases T-94/01, T-152/01 and T-286/01, Astrid
Hirsch, member of staff of the European Central Bank,
resident in Eppstein-Niederjosbach, Germany, represented by
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, Emanuele Nicastro,
member of staff of the European Central Bank, resident in
Frankfurt on Main, Germany, represented by N. Pflüger,
R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, and Johannes Priesemann,                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
member of staff of the European Central Bank, resident in
Frankfurt on Main, Germany, represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer,                                   of 22 October 2002
v European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams and
B. Wägenbaur): Application for annulment, in Case T-94/01,
of the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 September              in Case T-310/01: Schneider Electric SA v Commission of
2000 refusing to grant the applicant an education allowance                                the European Communities (1)
to cover the costs of attendance by her son at the International
School Frankfurt, in Case T-152/01, of the decision of the                (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
European Central Bank of 15 February 2001 refusing to grant               declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the com-
the applicant an education allowance in respect of his two                             mon market — Action for annulment)
sons and, in Case T-286/01, of the decision of the European
Central Bank of 6 June 2001 refusing to grant the applicant
an education allowance in respect of his children, the Court of                                     (2003/C 55/70)
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen,                                   (Language of the case: French)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 January 2003, in which it:
                                                                          In Case T-310/01: Schneider Electric SA, established in Rueil-
1.    Joins Cases T-94/01, T-152/01 and T-286/01 for the                  Malmaison (France), represented by F. Herbert, J. Steenbergen
      purposes of judgment;                                               and M. Pittie, lawyers, supported by French Republic (Agents:
                                                                          G. de Bergues and F. Million), against Commission of the
2.    In Case T-94/01:                                                    European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, P. Hellström and
                                                                          F. Lelièvre), supported by Comité Central d’Entreprise de la SA
                                                                          Legrand, Comité Européen du Groupe Legrand, established in
      —    Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank of            Limoges, represented by H. Masse-Dessen, lawyer — appli-
           25 September 2000;                                             cation for annulment of Commission Decision C(2001)3014
                                                                          final declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the
      —    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                         common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2283
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/25
— Schneider-Legrand) — the Court of First Instance (First                    (1) Annuls Commission Decision C (2002) 360 final of 30 Janu-
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood                       ary 2002 ordering the separation of undertakings (Case
and H. Legal, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the                         COMP/M.2283 — Schneider — Legrand);
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                          (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
                                                                                costs incurred by the applicant, including the costs of the
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C(2001)3014 final of 10 Octo-                    interlocutory proceedings in Case T-77/02 R;
       ber 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the
       common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/                       (3) Orders Legrand SA, the Comité Central d’Entreprise de la SA
       M.2283 — Schneider-Legrand);                                                Legrand and the Comité Européen du Groupe Legrand to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition,
       to pay those incurred by Schneider Electric SA;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
3.     Orders the Comité Central d’Entreprise de SA Legrand and the
       Comité Européeen du Groupe Legrand to bear their own costs;
4.     Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 December 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 in Case T-112/02: Gustaaf Van Dyck v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                        of 22 October 2002
                                                                             (Officials — Classification of grade upon recruitment —
in Case T-77/02: Schneider Electric SA v Commission of                          Application for reclassification — New fact — Meaning)
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/72)
(Competition — Regulation No 4064/89 — Decision
ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
a concentration incompatible with the common market —
           Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                           (2003/C 55/71)                                    In Case T-112/02, Gustaaf Van Dyck, an official of the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities, resident in
                                                                             Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by M.E. Storme and
                     (Language of the case: French)                          A. Gobien, avocats, against the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                             H.M.H. Speyart), seeking to set aside the Commission’s refusal
                                                                             to accede to the applicant’s request for reclassification, the
In Case T-77/02: Schneider Electric SA, established in Rueil-                Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
Malmaison (France), represented by A. Winckler and É. de La                  B. Vesterdorf, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,
Serre, lawyers, against Commission of the European Com-                      Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 13 December
munities (Agents: P. Oliver, P. Hellström and F. Lelièvre),                  2002 in which it:
supported by Legrand SA, established in Limoges (France),
represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, Comité central d’entreprise
de la SA Legrand, Comité européen du Groupe Legrand,                         (1) Dismissed the application as inadmissible.
established in Limoges, represented by H. Masse-Dessen,
lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision                    (2) Ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
C (2002) 360 final of 30 January 2002, ordering a separation
of undertakings (Case COMP/M.2282 — Schneider-Legrand)
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                   (1 ) OJ 2002 C 131, p. 26.
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 October 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-366/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/60

      Appeal brought on 1 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09, Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case T-366/10 P)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/109)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  in any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

                  —

                  declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without exception;

                  —

                  uphold in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the application lodged at first instance by the appellant;

                  —

                  order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the present appeal proceedings;

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 22 June 2010. That order dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking compensation for the damage sustained by the appellant because of the Commission’s refusal to reimburse him in respect of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission.
      In support of his claims, the appellant alleges the erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the concept of ‘request’ for the purposes of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations; total failure to state reasons; distortion and misrepresentation of the facts; and misinterpretation of the case-law on the recovery of costs which a party has been ordered to pay by the Court.
      The appellant also alleges breach of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence and asserts that the CST failed to rule on a number of his claims.


title: Case T-281/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (APPETITECONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/47

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (APPETITECONTROL)
   (Case T-281/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1433/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘APPETITECONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case C-684/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/20

         Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-684/15)
   (2016/C 098/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting every law, regulation and administrative provision necessary for compliance with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 130(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 6 700 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the transposition measures of Directive 2014/59/EU;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU expired on 31 December 2014.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.


5.4.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 83/27
On 30 May 1997 a contract was concluded between one of                   Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.
the applicants, Lurgi SpA, and the coordinator of the project,                against Commission of the European Communities
Bioelettrica, relating to the construction of a plant for the
atmospheric gasification of biomass. During the engineering
works, the applicant identified certain technical difficulties.                                    (Case T-46/03)
These difficulties were brought to the attention of the Com-
mission and the other contractors.                                                                 (2003/C 83/57)
On 6 September 2001, the Commission notified Bioelettrica                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
that it was terminating the contract because of the failure to
commence the works under the THERMIE contract. Bioelettrica
contested this termination of the contract before the Court of
First Instance in Case T-287/01, Bioelettrica/Commission.                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 February 2003 by Leali S.p.A.,
On 23 July 2002, the Commission sent a further notice                    represented by Giovanni Vezzoli and Gianluca Belotti, lawyers.
indicating that it would terminate the contract due to non-
performance by the contractors unless they performed their
obligations within 30 days. The Commission mainly criticised             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the delays of the project. In a letter dated 26 November
2002, the Commission stated that it considered the contract
terminated. This termination of the contract is being contested          —     principally, annul the contested decision;
in the present case.
                                                                         —     or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed,
In support of their application, the applicants invoke an                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
infringement of the formal requirements in the decision
making procedure of the Commission. According to the
applicants, all acts of the Commission have to be taken under
the principle of collegiality as set forth in Article 219 of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
EC Treaty and Article 1 of the procedural rules of the
Commission ( 1). The applicants submit that the decision termi-
nating the contract had a substantial financial impact for               This action is directed against the same decision as that
the contractors and involves a difficult technical and legal
                                                                         contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas
assessment of the contract and its purpose. Therefore, the
                                                                         in law and main arguments are similar to those in the
applicants claim that the decision to terminate the contract             abovementioned case.
could not be considered as an execution of an act at an
administrative or management level and that the decision had
to be taken by the College of Commissioners.
Furthermore, the applicants invoke the wrongful application
of the THERMIE contract. The applicants submit in this respect
that there is no justification for a termination of the contract
for non-performance by the contractors. According to the                         Removal from the register of Case T-187/94 (1)
applicants, this provision is not applicable when there are
reasonable technical or economic grounds for non-perform-
ance. In the present case, there was a need to make modifi-                                        (2003/C 83/58)
cations to the original technology causing serious economic
risks.                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Finally, the applicants submit that the behaviour of the
Commission prevents the Commission from invoking non-
performance as a ground for termination of the contract. In              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the First
this respect, the applicants invoke Article 1460 of the Italian          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Civil Code and the principle inadimplenti non est adim-                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
plentum.                                                                 T-187/94: Theresia Rudolf v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) Rules of Procedure of the Commission [C(2000) 3614] (OJ L 308
     of 8 December 2000, p. 26).                                         (1 ) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.


title: Joined Case C-4/10 and C-27/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — the proceedings brought by Bureau national interprofessionnel du Cognac (Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 — Geographical indications of spirit drinks — Temporal application — Trade mark incorporating a geographical indication — Use leading to a situation which may adversely affect the geographical indication — Refusal of registration or invalidation of such a mark — Direct applicability of a regulation)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — the proceedings brought by Bureau national interprofessionnel du Cognac
   (Joined Case C-4/10 and C-27/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 - Geographical indications of spirit drinks - Temporal application - Trade mark incorporating a geographical indication - Use leading to a situation which may adversely affect the geographical indication - Refusal of registration or invalidation of such a mark - Direct applicability of a regulation)
   2011/C 269/13
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Proceedings brought by: Bureau national interprofessionnel du Cognac

      Intervening party: Gust. Ranin Oy

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of First Council Directive 89/104 of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1988 L 40, p. 1) and Articles 16 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16) — Relationship between the trade marks and the protected geographical indications — Registration of a figurative mark incorporating inter alia the geographical indication ‘Cognac’ for spirit drinks not fulfilling the conditions for use of that geographical indication.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 is applicable to the assessment of the validity of the registration of a trade mark containing a geographical indication protected by that regulation, where registration took place before the regulation entered into force;

               2.

               Articles 23 and 16 of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the competent national authorities must, on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 110/2008, refuse or invalidate the registration of a mark which contains a protected geographical indication and which is not covered by the temporary derogation provided for in Article 23(2) of that regulation, where the use of that mark would lead to one of the situations referred to in Article 16 thereof;

                           —

                           a situation such as that referred to in the second question referred for a preliminary ruling — that is to say, the registration of a mark containing a geographical indication, or a term corresponding to that indication and its translation, in respect of spirit drinks which do not meet the specifications set for that indication — falls within the situations referred to in Article 16(a) and (b) of Regulation No 110/2008, without prejudice to the possible application of other rules laid down in Article 16.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-189/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Ente per le ville vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Ending of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Status to act of ultimate beneficiary of assistance — Direct link — Rights of the defence — Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended — No inquiry)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Ente per le ville vesuviane v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-189/02) (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Ending of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Status to act of ultimate beneficiary of assistance - Direct link - Rights of the defence - Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended - No inquiry)
   (2007/C 211/61)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Ente per le ville vesuviane (Naples, Italy) (represented by: E. Soprano and A. De Angelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and H. Speyart, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision D(2002) 810111 of 13 March 2002, purporting to end financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the form of investment in infrastructure in Campania (Italy) relating to an integrated scheme of development of three Vesuvian towns for the purposes of tourism (ERDF No 86/05/04/054).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ente per le ville vesuviane to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 10.8.2002.


title: Case T-366/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Hensotherm v OHIM — Hensel (HENSOTHERM) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Community figurative and word mark HENSOTHERM — National word mark HENSOTHERM — Inadmissibility of the appeal against the decision conferring the cancellation — Time-limits — Restitutio in integrum)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Hensotherm v OHIM — Hensel (HENSOTHERM)
   (Case T-366/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Community figurative and word mark HENSOTHERM - National word mark HENSOTHERM - Inadmissibility of the appeal against the decision conferring the cancellation - Time-limits - Restitutio in integrum)
   (2006/C 310/33)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Hensotherm AB (Trelleborg, Sweden) (represented by: S. Hallbäck, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Rudolf Hensel GmbH (Börnsen, Germany) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2004 (Case R 614/2003-1), concerning proceedings for invalidity of the Community figurative mark HENSOTHERM.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               The intervener is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-201/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/9
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB against the                      Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle against
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                            the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-201/03)                                                            (Case T-218/03)
                        (2003/C 239/12)                                                            (2003/C 239/13)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB, Märsta,                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Sweden, represented by Mrs R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.                    European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle,
                                                                          Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                          Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal at                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      OHIM of 21 February 2003 in case R 883/2001-4;
                                                                          —     annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
      (OHIM) to permit registration of the term TIVAS as a                      Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
      Community Trademark in respect of the services in                         into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
      classes 09, 10 and 42 for which registration has been                     hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
      refused;                                                                  vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
—     order the OHIM to refund the appeal fee to the applicant                  capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
                                                                                the MFV Marie Dawn;
—     order the Office to pay the costs of the dispute, including
      those relating to the procedure before the Board of                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
      Appeal.                                                                   ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The Community trade           ‘TIVAS’ -        Application      No
mark concerned:               2025716                                     The applicant sought to replace his fishing vessel with a new
                                                                          vessel, adding some distinct safety elements that required an
Products or services:         Products in classes 9 (computers            increase of gross tonnage. The application for an increase in
                              and peripherial devices thereto             tonnage was submitted by Ireland to the European Com-
                                                                          mission, who rejected it in the contested decision ( 1).
                              and computer software for anaes-
                              thesia and intensive care), 10
                              (Medical apparatus and instru-
                              ments for anaesthesia and inten-            In support of its application, the applicant invokes, in the first
                              sive care) and 42 (medical-techni-          place, absence of power of the Commission. According to the
                              cal development and research)               applicant, the Commission’s powers under Decision 97/413 (2)
                                                                          concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring
Challenged       Decision     Refusal of the application by the           the Community fisheries are limited. The applicant submits
before the Board of           examiner                                    that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 imposes an obligation on
Appeal:                                                                   the Commission to determine applications for increases on a
                                                                          case-by-case basis and that the only issues the Commission
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Artice 7(1)(b) and          may consider in making its decision are whether the increase
                              (c) of Council Regulation (CE)              in capacity results exclusively from safety improvements and
                              No 40/94                                    whether it increases the fishing effort of the vessel. According
                                                                          to the applicant, the Commission therefore had no power
                                                                          under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 to adopt certain other
                                                                          criteria referred to in Article 1 of the contested Decision.