title: Case T-148/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/52

         Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
   (Case T-148/17)
   (2017/C 144/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 in so far as it maintains the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016 to recover the amount of EUR 56 554 from Ms Mylène Troszczynski;

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 taken pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, establishing that the applicant had a debt in the amount of EUR 56 544 in respect of amounts unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, giving reasons for its recovery and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accounting officer, to proceed with the recovery of those amounts pursuant to Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               annul debit note No 2016-888, undated, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016, for recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               annul the debit note of 29 June 2016;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Ms Mylène Trosczcynski the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The sums which are the subject of the present dispute relate to the employment contract of indefinite duration concluded between the applicant and a local assistant working as a full-time parliamentary assistant in the Member State in which the applicant was elected. The defendant questions, on the basis of certain evidence concerning the posts held by the local assistant within the political party to which the applicant belongs, whether the applicant complied with the obligations under Articles 33, 43 and 62 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament.
   In support of the action, the applicant argues that, in the present case, the contested measures are vitiated by defects affecting their external legality relating, in particular, to the lack of competence ratione materiae of the author of the act, the failure to state reasons and the failure to comply with essential procedural requirements.
   She also claims that the internal legality of the contested measures is vitiated by defects relating to the non-existence of the facts alleged, the determination of the party who bears the burden of proof, infringement of the principle of proportionality, interference with the political rights of local assistants, misuse of powers, the discriminatory nature of the disputed measures and the existence of fumus persecutionis, infringement of the independence of parliamentary representatives, the prohibition of any imperative mandate, infringement of the principles of una via electa and non bis in idem, in so far as the President of the European Parliament forwarded to OLAF factual material leading to the presumption that the alleged irregularities concerning the applicant had occurred.


title: Case C-407/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 27 August 2014  — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España, S.A.

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 27 August 2014 — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España, S.A.
   (Case C-407/14)
   2014/C 409/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho

      Defendant: Securitas Seguridad España, S.A.

      Question referred

   May Article 18 of Directive 2006/54/EC, (1) which refers to the dissuasive (in addition to real, effective and proportionate) nature of the compensation to be awarded to a victim of discrimination on grounds of sex, be interpreted as meaning that it enables the national court to award the victim reasonable punitive damages that are truly additional, that is to say, an additional amount which, although going beyond the full reparation of the actual loss and damage suffered by the victim, serves as an example to others (in addition to the person responsible for the damage), provided that the amount in question is not disproportionate, that also being the case even when the concept of punitive damages does not form part of the legal tradition of that national court?

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)

      OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


title: Case T-559/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/23

         Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council
   (Case T-559/12)
   2013/C 46/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the exclusion from the dumping calculation of certain export transactions of the applicant violates Articles 2(11), 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the principle of non-discrimination and Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the Applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase in the capital of the company by administrative decision — Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community law)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/7
In those circumstances, the security provided for in Article 31(1) of          an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive,
Regulation No 3665/87 must be released and only the amount paid                or if the Commission has taken a ‘favourable decision’ under
by way of advance payment of the export refund must be reimbursed              paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which
by the exporter in accordance with the national provisions applicable          forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the
to repayment of sums unduly paid.                                              Commission must issue the ‘consent in writing’, allowing the
                                                                               product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime
                                                                               the Member State concerned has new information which leads it
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                     to consider that the product for which notification has been
                                                                               received may constitute a risk to human health and the
                                                                               environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided
                                                                               that it immediately informs the Commission and the other
                                                                               Member States about the new information in order that, within
                                                                               the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a
                                                                               decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the
                                                                               procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in
                          of 21 March 2000                                     the conduct of the examination of the notification by the
                                                                               competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of
                                                                               Directive 90/220, it was not proper for that authority to forward
in Case C-6/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as
the Conseil d’État): Association Greenpeace France and
                                                                               provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must
Others v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
                                                                               refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if
                              Others (1)
                                                                               it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the
                                                                               validity of the Commission’s favourable decision, if necessary
(Directive 90/220/EEC — Biotechnology — Genetically                            ordering the suspension of application of the measures for
 modified organisms — Decision 97/98/EC — Maize seeds)                         implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled
                                                                               on the question of validity.
                           (2000/C 149/11)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-6/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Conseil d’État,                                           (Sixth Chamber)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Greenpeace France and                                         of 23 March 2000
Others and Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
Others, third parties: Novartis Seeds SA, Monsanto Europe SA               in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
— on the interpretation of Article 13(2) and (4) of Council                the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis
Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate                    v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikono-
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms                    mikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (1)
(OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by Commission Directive
97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for                (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public
the second time Council Directive 90/220 (OJ 1997 L 169,                   limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase
p. 72) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                 in the capital of the company by administrative decision —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen            Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-                                              law)
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and
F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                                               (2000/C 149/12)
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
     organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for the second time                          in the European Court Reports)
     Council Directive 90/220, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
     if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has          In Case C-373/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Polimeles
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
Protodikio Athinon, Greece, for a preliminary ruling in the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between, on the one
hand, Dionisios Diamantis and, on the other hand, Elliniko
Dimosio and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiri-                                            (Fifth Chamber)
seon AE (OAE) — on the interpretation of Articles 25 and
29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 Decem-
ber 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the                                                of 23 March 2000
protection of the interests of members and others, are required
by Member States of companies within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of
the formation of public limited liability companies and the                 in Case C-208/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Potsdam): Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG v
maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to
making such safeguards equivalent (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1) and                                          Andreas Siepert (1)
on the abuse of a right arising from those provisions — the
Court, composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     (Approximation of laws — Consumer credit — Directive
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and                    87/102 — Scope — Contracts of guarantee — Not covered)
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 March 2000, in which it has ruled:                                                                 (2000/C 149/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Community law does not preclude national courts from applying a
provision of national law which enables them to determine whether a
right deriving from a Community law provision is being abused.
However, in making that determination, it is not permissible to deem        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
a shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive                                 in the European Court Reports)
77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are
required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the            In Case C-208/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landgericht
formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance         Potsdam (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards      pending before that court between Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG
equivalent, to be abusing his rights under that provision merely            and Andreas Siepert, on the interpretation of Council Directive
because he is a minority shareholder of a company subject to                87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of
reorganisation measures, or has benefited from reorganisation of the        the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
company, or has not exercised his right of pre-emption, or was              Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42,
among the shareholders who asked for the company to be placed               p. 48) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C.
under the scheme applicable to companies in serious difficulties, or        Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting
has allowed a certain period of time to elapse before bringing his          for the President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
action. In contrast, Community law does not preclude national courts        C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,
from applying the provision of national law concerned if, of the            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
remedies available for a situation that has arisen in breach of that        trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March
provision, a shareholder has chosen a remedy that will cause such           2000, in which it has ruled:
serious damage to the legitimate interests of others that it appears
manifestly disproportionate.
                                                                            On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
                                                                            22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                            consumer credit, it does not cover a contract of guarantee for
                                                                            repayment of credit where neither the guarantor nor the borrower was
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.                                                    acting in the course of his trade or profession.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-220/15: Action brought on 12 May 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/7

         Action brought on 12 May 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-220/15)
   (2015/C 228/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, A. C. Becker, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany acted in breach of its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23/EC (1) by stipulating, in the First ordinance to the Law on Explosives (Erste Verordnung zum Sprengstoffgesetz, ‘the First SprengV’), beyond the requirements of the directive, that, notwithstanding a previous conformity assessment of pyrotechnic articles, the procedure laid down in Paragraph 6(4) of the First SprengV must be completed before their placing on the market, and that, pursuant to the fifth sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the First SprengV, the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing) is entitled to examine and, if necessary, amend instructions of all pyrotechnic articles.

               —

               Order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the question to what extent the Member States can impose additional national requirements for the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles on manufacturers and importers of pyrotechnic articles within the meaning of Directive 2007/23/EC also for such products which, as evidenced by a marking with the CE marking, comply with the essential requirements of the directive. In this connection, the legislation contested by the Commission does not set any content requirements for those products, but merely provides for an additional procedure which is preliminary to market access within the territory of the defendant.
   Regardless of the evidence of conformity, the defendant requires that all pyrotechnic articles within the meaning of Directive 2007/23/EC be indicated to a federal institute provided for by law, which assigns an identification number in proof of the identification. Where the procedure takes a significant length of time, that procedure may inter alia also involve the payment of an administrative charge and the delivery of test samples. The Commission considers the requirement of such a procedure to be an infringement of the free movement, guaranteed in Article 6 of Directive 2007/23/EC, for all pyrotechnic articles which conform to the requirements of the directive.
   The adoption of Directive 2013/29/EU (2), with which Directive 2007/23/EC is repealed with effect from 1 July 2015, has also not changed that situation. That is because, first, the time period which is relevant for assessing whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations is the expiry of the time period stated in the reasoned opinion (in the present case 27 March 2014). Secondly, in Article 4(1) thereof, Directive 2013/29/EU contains a provision which is identical to Article 6(1) of Directive 2007/23/EC, for the purpose of guaranteeing free movement for all pyrotechnic articles which conform to the requirements of EU law.
   The infringement, alleged in the present case, by the defendant therefore consists, essentially, in a procedural condition for the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles which, in the Commission’s view, is inadmissible and beyond the harmonised requirements of EU law. As a procedural requirement, the contested legislation might at first sight give the impression of merely causing, in a very few cases, a reasonable delay in the marketing of those products. However, the actual effects of that legislation are not to be underestimated. In this regard account should first of all be taken of the fact that the defendant is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sales markets for pyrotechnic articles in the internal market. In addition, it should be noted that certain pyrotechnic articles within the territory of the defendant may be sold to consumers only once a year, and only for a short period of time, by which the temporal dimension of that market access is all the more important. In this respect, lastly, the fact that, under national law, the legislation contested in the present case is implemented by the same authority which is also authorised to conduct the conformity assessment as the notified body within the meaning of Directive 2007/23/EC also merits consideration. The requirement of an additional procedure in the national law of the defendant therefore gives that authority a competitive advantage over the notified bodies of other Member States. In view of those practical effects of the contested legislation, the present case by no means involves merely the legal assessment, on grounds of principle, of a hindrance to economic operators from marketing products which have already been assessed by a notified body other than the German notified body as in compliance with the requirements of EU law.

      (1)  Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, OJ 2007 L 154, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2013/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles (recast), OJ 2013 L 178, p. 27.


title: Case T-54/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/46               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
In support of its application the applicant submits the                 Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA
following contentions:                                                      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-54/03)
—     the defendant violated the rights of the defence and the
      principle of equality of arms. More specifically, the                                      (2003/C 101/81)
      applicant alleges that the defendant used information
      obtained from a third party as well as information
      contained in the replies of the other parties to the                                 (Language of the case: French)
      defendant, and that all of that information was not
      revealed to the applicant.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     the evidence advanced by the defendant does not substan-          European Communities on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA,
      tiate its claims and the defendant has failed to meet the         established in Paris, represented by Henry Lesguillons, Nathalie
      high standard of proof which the applicant considers is           Jalbert-Doury, Jean-Cyril Bermond, Antoine Winckler, François
      required in such proceedings.                                     Brunet and Igor Simic, lawyers.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     the defendant made manifest errors in its assessment of
      information, leading it to an incorrect decision and
      misuse of its powers.                                             —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities on 27 November 2002 in Case
                                                                              COMP/E-1/37.152 in so far as it concerns Lafarge SA and
                                                                              Lafarge Gypsum International SA;
—     the defendant violated Article 253, EC, in that it failed to
      provide sufficient or adequate reasons for its decision           —     in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine
                                                                              imposed on it by that decision;
                                                                        —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay the costs.
The applicant further contends that in setting the fine the
defendant misapplied its powers under Article 15, paragraph 2,
of Regulation 17/62 and its own Guidelines on setting
fines, violated the principles of Community law and acted               Pleas in law and main arguments
unreasonably. In particular, the applicant contends that:
                                                                        The decision which is the subject of the present application
                                                                        concerns an agreement or arrangement between BPB, Gebruder
—     the basic amounts of the fine imposed for gravity and             Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke AG, Gyproc Benelux and the
      duration are disproportionate, arbitrary, and contrary to         applicant on the plasterboard market.
      the principles of proportionality and equal treatment
                                                                        In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
—     the 50 % uplift for aggravating circumstances is excessive        committed manifest errors of assessment inasmuch as the
      and disproportionate and offends the principle of equal           decision finds that Lafarge SA committed a single complex
      treatment                                                         continuous infringement, which the applicant denies.
—     the defendant failed to take account of any attenuating           The applicant also takes the view that:
      circumstances
                                                                        —     the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing guaran-
                                                                              teed under Article 6 of the ECHR;
—     the defendant erred in its application of its Leniency            —     the defendant infringed essential procedural requirements
      Notice in violation of the principles of equal treatment                and rights of the defence. In that respect, the applicant
      and legitimate expectation                                              claims that the defendant used statements from the parties
                                                                              made during the procedure and that the proceedings were
                                                                              vitiated by constant infringements of the principle of
                                                                              equality of arms;
                                                                        —     the defendant infringed the principle of impartiality.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/47
In support of its claims the applicant alleges, in the alternative,              and the remuneration corresponding to classification in
that the defendant infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17,                  the next higher grade and step, together with default
Article 253 EC and the principles of proportionality and of                      interest at 5,7 % per annum as from 16 March 2001;
equal treatment by:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay damages and interests assessed,
—      imposing on the applicant a fine in excess of 10 % of its                 ex æquo et bono, at EUR 500 a month as from 16 March
       worldwide turnover;                                                       2001 until the date they are paid;
—      imposing on the applicant an global fine in respect of              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       allegedly discrete infringements;
—      increasing the ‘starting amount’ as a deterrent and on the
       ground of aggravating circumstances;                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—      applying an excessive multiplication factor;
                                                                           The applicant in these proceedings challenges the decision of
                                                                           the appointing authority refusing to classify him in Grade A6,
—      not reducing the fine on the ground of attenuating                  Step 3, on his taking up his duties with the defendant following
       circumstances or by virtue of the ‘Amnesty Notice’ (1).             competition EUR/A/154 for the recruitment of administrators
                                                                           (career bracket A 7/A 6) in auditing and accounting.
( 1) Published in OJ 1996 C 207 p. 4.
                                                                           In support of his claims he alleges:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, of
                                                                                the decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria
                                                                                applicable to appointment to grade and classification in
                                                                                step on recruitment and of the Administrative Guide;
Action brought on 12 February 2003 by Philippe Brendel                     —     infringement of the principle patere quam ipse legem
     against Commission of the European Communities                              fecisti and of equal treatment;
                                                                           —     that there was in the circumstances a manifest error of
                           (Case T-55/03)                                        assessment;
                          (2003/C 101/82)                                  —     disregard of the duty to have regard to the interests of
                                                                                officials and the duty to state reasons;
                    (Language of the case: French)                         —     infringement of Article 39 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2003 by Philippe
Brendel, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                           Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A.
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-56/03)
—      annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
       3 May 2002 classing the applicant in Grade A 7, Step 2                                       (2003/C 101/83)
       with effect from 16 March 2001 and, so far as is
       necessary, annul the decision of 25 October 2002,
       notified on 4 November 2002, to reject the applicant’s                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
       complaint;
—      order the defendant to pay the balance of the remuner-
       ation consisting of the difference between the remuner-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       ation corresponding to classification in Grade A 7, Step 2,         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 January 2014 in Case E-1/13 — Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

text:
               24.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 January 2014
   in Case E-1/13
   Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

      (Action for annulment — State aid — Lease contract — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — Market investor principle — Tender procedure)

   (2014/C 121/06)
   In Case E-1/13, Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’) the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 January 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls ESA Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’).

               2.

               Orders ESA to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2002 In Joined Cases C-216/99 and C-222/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano): Riccardo Prisco Srl v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (C-216/99) and Ministero delle Finanze v CASER SpA (C-229/99) (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) — Register of companies — Registration of companies' instruments of incorporation and other company documents — Recovery of sums paid but not due — Procedural time-limits under national law — Interest)

text:
9.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 274/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the interpretation of Community law on the recovery of sums
                                                                             paid but not due, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                             of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                             gues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                      of 10 September 2002                                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 10 September 2002, in which it has ruled:
In Joined Cases C-216/99 and C-222/99 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano): Riccar-
do Prisco Srl v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
(C-216/99) and Ministero delle Finanze v CASER SpA
                            (C-229/99) ( 1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                     1.    Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
capital — Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) — Register of companies                         concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be
— Registration of companies’ instruments of incorporation                          interpreted as prohibiting, subject to the exceptions in Article 12
and other company documents — Recovery of sums paid but                            of that directive, retroactive charges for the registration of
not due — Procedural time-limits under national law —                              company documents in the register of companies where they
                              Interest)                                            do not constitute capital duty permitted by that directive.
                                                                                Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC must be interpreted
                          (2002/C 274/01)                                          as meaning that such retroactive charges do not constitute
                                                                                duties paid by way of fees or dues permitted by that provision
                                                                                where the registrations in the register of companies for which
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                they are charged have already given rise to charges for which
                                                                                the retroactive charges are intended to be a substitute but which
                                                                                are not reimbursed to those who have paid them. Otherwise, for
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             such retroactive charges to constitute duties paid by way of fees
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  or dues permitted by Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/
                                                                                EEC, their amounts, which may vary according to the legal
                                                                                form of the company, must be calculated solely on the basis of
                                                                                the cost of the formalities in question, although they may also
In Joined Cases C-216/99 and C-222/99: Reference to the                            cover the costs of minor operations carried out free of charge,
Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)                      and must take account of any other charges paid in parallel
(C-216/99) and the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) (C-222/99)                      which are also intended to pay for the same service rendered. In
for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before                          calculating those amounts, a Member State is entitled to take
those courts between Riccardo Prisco Srl and Amministrazione                       into account all the costs linked with the registration operations,
delle Finanze dello Stato (C-216/99), and between Ministero                        including the share of overheads attributable to them. A
delle Finanze and CASER SpA (C-222/99), on the interpret-                          Member State also has the option of introducing flat-rate
ation of Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/                     charges and setting their amounts for an indeterminate period,
EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising                       as long as it ensures at regular intervals that those amounts
of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412) and on                   still do not exceed the average cost of the operations concerned.
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.11.2002
2.    Community law does not prohibit a Member State from                   the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
      resisting actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of        and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 226, p. 26), in so far
      Community law by relying on a time-limit under national law           as it imposes on the Federal Republic of Germany a flat-rate
      of three years, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules          correction of 5 % to the expenditure declared in respect of
      governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of     financial support in the arable crops sector in Mecklenburg-
      sums paid but not due, for which the period allowed is more           Vorpommern, equal to the sum of DEM 30 394 115,33,
      favourable, provided that that time-limit applies in the same         instead of 2 %, equal to the sum of DEM 12 157 646,13 —
      way to actions based on Community law for repayment of such           the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
      charges as to those based on national law.                            the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                            A. La Pergola, and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-
3.    Community law precludes the adoption by a Member State of             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the
      provisions making repayment of a tax held to be contrary to           Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2002, in
      Community law by a judgment of the Court, or whose                    which it:
      incompatibility with Community law is apparent from such a
      judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax
      which are less favourable than those which would otherwise be         1.    Dismisses the action;
      applied to repayment of the tax in question.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
in Case C-377/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-413/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Baumbast, R v
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                               Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
                           — Arable crops)
                                                                            (Freedom of movement for persons — Migrant worker —
                           (2002/C 274/02)                                  Rights of residence of members of the migrant worker’s
                                                                            family — Rights of the children to pursue their studies in
                                                                            the host Member State — Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (EEC) No 1612/68 — Citizenship of the European Union —
                                                                            Right of residence — Directive 90/364/EEC — Limitations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                and conditions)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/03)
In Case C-377/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
initially by W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski and sub-
sequently W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and
G. Braun) — application for partial annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999, amending Decision
1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by                   In Case C-413/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of                 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for


title: Case T-114/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Bode Chemie GmbH v OHIM — Laros (sterilina) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark sterilina — Earlier Community word and figurative marks STERILLIUM and BODE Sterillium — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Bode Chemie GmbH v OHIM — Laros (sterilina)
   (Case T-114/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark sterilina - Earlier Community word and figurative marks STERILLIUM and BODE Sterillium - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 359/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bode Chemie GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Aicher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laros Srl (Cremone, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2012 (Case R 2423/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bode Chemie GmbH and Laros Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bode Chemie GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Laros Srl for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-96/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 /9
Community, concerning organization of specific training               1 . On the proper interpretation of Article 26 , where in a
in general medical practice and other provisions relating                   single transaction a tour operator provides a service to the
to universities :                                                           traveller part of which is supplied to the tour operator by
                                                                            other taxable persons ('bought in') and part of which is
                                                                            supplied by the tour operator from its own resources ('in
1 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 93/16/                 house'), on what basis is the tour operator's margin under
      EEC f 1 ) of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free                      Article 26 (2 ) to be calculated ?
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of
      their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
      formal qualifications, in conjunction with Articles 3           2 . Is Article 26 to be interpreted as :
      and 23 and with the other provisions of Title IV of
      that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that the                    ( a ) requiring the apportionment of the total amount
      specific training in general medical practice cannot                        received by the tour operator from the traveller
      begin until after the person concerned has obtained,                        between bought in and in-house supplies by
      after at least six years' study, the diploma referred to                    reference to the costs of the components; or
      in Article 3 ?
                                                                            ( b ) as authorizing Member States to require
2 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( d) of that Directive be interpreted                   apportionment by reference to such costs ( i )
      as meaning that the 'personal participation of the                          generally or ( ii ) in the case of operations of the
      trainee     in    the professional       activities   and                   kind in the issue in the present case;
      responsibilities of the persons with whom he works'
      requires the trainee to pursue the activities of a doctor                   or
      which are reserved to holders of the diplomas required
      by Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive ?
                                                                            (c ) as leaving such apportionment to be made in
                                                                                accordance with the normal principles for
3 . If so, must that same provision be interpreted as                             determining the taxable amount under Article 1 1 ?
      meaning that the trainee should pursue the activities of
      a doctor from the beginning of the specific training in         f 1 ) OJNoL 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
      general medical practice, whether that training is the
      full-time training laid down by Article 31 of the
      Directive or the part-time training laid down by
      Article 34 ?
H OJ NoL 165 , 7. 7. 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                      Action brought on 6 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-96/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/23 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997,             An action against the French Republic was brought before
in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of                       6 March 1997 by tfie Commission of the European
                       Customs and Excise                             Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright and
                                                                      Jean-Francois Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address
                          ( Case C-94/97)                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                            ( 97/C 131 /22                            de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and
 Duties Tribunal of 26 February 1997, which was received              — declare that, by failing to notify or to bring into force
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
 ruling in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin                        necessary in order to comply with Commission
 trading as Howden Court Hotel against the                                   Directive 91 /412/EEC of 23 July 1991 laying down
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                       the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing
 questions :                                                                 practice for veterinary medicinal products ( 1 ), the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that Directive,
 If it is determined in Case C-308/96 that the provisions of
 Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive ( J ) apply to
 operations of the kind in issue in the present case:                  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131/10            r EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            country ( Denmark ), travels to a third EU country
                                                                                ( England ), where the person suffers injury, to receive
                                                                                hospital treatment free-of-charge in the second EU
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                            country ( Denmark ) for the injury suffered, where the
those in Case C-56/97 (2 ); the period prescribed by the                        hospital treatment has been interrupted by the citizen
Directive expired on 23 July 1993 .                                             returning to Denmark where the hospital treatment is
                                                                                continued ? It is assumed that what is involved is a
                                                                                continuous course of treatment.
(') OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
                                                                           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Arhus, by
a letter of 5 March 1997 in the case of Elly Bach v. Arhus
                             Amtskommune                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                             ( Case C-97/97)                               28 February 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
                               ( 97/C 131 /24 )                            freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm
                                                                                Verlag Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-99/97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                ( 97/C 131 /25 )
European Communities by letter of 5 March 1997 from
 Retten i Arhus (Arhus Court), which was received at the
 Court Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling
 in the case between Elly Bach and Arhus Amtskommune
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
 on the following questions :
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna )
                                                                           of 28 February 1997, which was received at the Court
 1 . In the application of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC )                Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       No 1408/71           and Annex VI thereto, point B ( 2 ),           case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
       should that provision, including the requirement as                 Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH on
       regards a stay, be interpreted strictly according to its            the following question:
       wording, or may the provision be interpreted as
       meaning that an EU citizen is always entitled to
       medical treatment free-of-charge in one Member State,
       even if the injury occurred, and the first part of the               Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
       medical treatment was given, in another Member                       precluding application of legislation of Member State A
       State ?                                                              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
                                                                            from selling in Member State A a periodically published
                                                                            magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
       In the reply, it should be assumed that what is                      puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
       involved is a continuous course of treatment which                   Member State B ?
       was interrupted in one Member State and continued in
       another. It is thus not a question of follow-up
       treatment .
  2 . May the term 'reside' in Article 31 be interpreted
       purposively in order to cover an EU country where a
       citizen, under other EU legislation, lawfully stays for              Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
       up to six months of the year in a summer house                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       property ? It should be noted that the stay is not of an                                          Luxembourg
        occupational character, and that the citizen is not                                           Case C-100/97 )
        registered in that country.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /26
   3 . Regardless of the scope of Article 31 in Regulation
        No 1408/71 , is not Annex VI, point B ( 2 ), per se a
        sufficient basis for a citizen resident in one EU country            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
        ( Spain ), who, during a holiday stay in another EU                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case F-82/09: Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Nolin v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/37

         Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Nolin v Commission
   (Case F-82/09)
   2009/C 297/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 19 December 2008 concerning the withdrawal of the applicant’s promotion points and priority points.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director General of DG Admin of 19 December 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss which he suffered as a result of its injurious and vexatious behaviour and the infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which led to a failure to take account of his right to an effective remedy;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-380/00: Action brought on 20 December 2000 by Japan Tobacco Inc. against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/24                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
Action brought on 20 December 2000 by R.J. Reynolds                      Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Community’s
Tobacco Holdings Inc. against the Council of the European                competence to act in Member States to counter fraud in
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                     cooperation with the Member States does not permit it to
                                                                         launch civil proceedings in the United States; measures to
                                                                         counter fraud must be adopted according to the procedures
                          (Case T-379/00)                                laid down in Article 280(4) EC, a procedure which was not
                                                                         followed in respect of the contested decisions.
                           (2001/C 79/42)
                                                                         The applicant contends that, in launching the proceedings in
                                                                         the United States, the Community is circumventing the
                                                                         applicable procedures for the levying and recoverability of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       unpaid customs duties and the penalties which could be
                                                                         imposed for avoidance, that the applicant’s right to be heard
                                                                         has been infringed, and that the general principles of legal
An action against the Council of the European Union and the              certainty, the rights of defence, due process and proportionality
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       have been breached. Finally, the applicant maintains that
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           the defendants have misused their powers by adopting the
on 20 December 2000 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings                    contested decisions.
Inc., a company incorporated in the state of Delaware (USA),
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Paul Lomas of Fresh-
fields Bruckhaus Deringer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Action brought on 20 December 2000 by Japan Tobacco
—     annul the Commission’s decision, which became known
                                                                         Inc. against the Council of the European Union and the
      to the applicant on 6 November 2000, to commence the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
      New York RICO Proceedings in the name of the European
      Community against the applicant and/or to instruct
      others to do so; and, if it exists,                                                         (Case T-380/00)
—     annul the Council’s decision, which never became known                                       (2001/C 79/43)
      to the applicant, to commence the New York RICO
      Proceedings in the name of the European Community
      against the applicant and/or to mandate or instruct others                            (Language of the case: English)
      to do so;
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union and the
—     order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the cost            Commission of the European Communities was brought
      of these proceedings, including those of the applicant and         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      any third parties.                                                 on 20 December 2000 by Japan Tobacco Inc., a company
                                                                         incorporated in Japan, represented by Onno W. Brouwer
                                                                         and Paul Lomas of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels
                                                                         (Belgium).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant is a defendant in legal proceedings brought by             —    annul the Commission’s decision, which became known
the European Community before a United States court, in                       to the applicant on 6 November 2000, to commence the
which the Community seeks compensatory, treble and punitive                   New York RICO Proceedings in the name of the European
damages for losses allegedly suffered for unpaid VAT, customs                 Community against the applicant and/or to instruct
duties etc. which, it is alleged, the Community has not received              others to do so; and, if it exists,
as a result of smuggling of cigarettes into the European Union.
                                                                         —    annul the Council’s decision, which never became known
                                                                              to the applicant, to commence the New York RICO
The applicant submits that the Community has no competence                    Proceedings in the name of the European Community
to levy or collect customs duties or VAT directly or indirectly               against the applicant and/or to mandate or instruct others
in civil damages proceedings. All competence to levy or collect               to do so;
such taxes resides exclusively in the Member States and is
enforceable under procedures established in each of them                 —    order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the cost
which do not include the use of civil damages claims in lieu of               of these proceedings, including those of the applicant and
tax collection.                                                               any third parties.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Proprietor of the right to    The applicant
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              asserted by way of oppo-
relied upon in Case T-379/00.                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                        proceedings:
                                                                        Trade mark or sign            Registered German figurative
                                                                        asserted by way of oppo-      mark ‘ILS’ for ‘educational and
                                                                        sition in the opposition      teaching material (except for
                                                                        proceedings:                  apparatus) in the form of printed
                                                                                materials; data carriers of all kind
Action brought on 30 December 2000 by the Institut für                                                with programmes for educational
Lernsysteme against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                               purposes; development and run-
                        Internal Market                                                               ning of correspondence courses’
                                                                                in Classes 9, 16 and 41
                        (Case T-388/00)
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                         (2001/C 79/44)
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        Appeal:
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — infringement of essential for-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                            mal provisions, e.g. Article 43
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                              (1) of Council Regulation on
European Communities on 30 December 2000 by the Institut                                                  the Community Trade Mark
für Lernsysteme, Hamburg, represented by Jörg Schneider                                               — misapplication of the prin-
of CMS Hasche Sigle Eschenlohr Peltzer Schäfer, Stuttgart                                                 ciple that the closer the goods
(Germany).                                                                                and services are to one anoth-
                                                                                er, the greater the distance the
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal                                             marks must observe from one
was ELS Educational Services, Inc., Culver City, California,                                              another
United States.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Office dated 18.10.2000
      — R 074/2000-3 and reject the registration of the
      Community trade mark 000131276 ‘ELS’;
                                                                        Action brought on 5 January 2001 by Renco S.A. against
—     order the Office to bear the costs.                                             the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-4/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 79/45)
Applicant for the Com-        ELS Educational Services, Inc.
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘ELS’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation 131276, relating to ‘edu-
                              cational textbooks and printed            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                              materials, namely student work-           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                              books, catalogs, teaching man-            Communities on 5 January 2001 by Renco S.A., established in
                              uals, printed instruction materials       Milan (Italy), represented by Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg
                              and charts and booklets designed          Bar, and Francesco Apruzzi, of the Brussels Bar.
                              for students seeking to learn
                              English as a second language’ in          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              Class 16; ‘rendering technical
                              assistance in connection with the         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
                              establishment and/or operation of               totalling 6 863 000 euro, together with compensatory
                              language schools’ in Class 35 and               interest with effect from the date of the event giving rise
                              ‘educational services, namely pro-              to the damage — namely, 14 April 2000 — and legal
                              viding English language instruc-                interest from the date of delivery of the judgment,
                              tion’ in Class 41                               composed of:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2001 in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word marks UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 259/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 14 June 2001                                                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                        in Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG
in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch                    (DKV) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
VerlagsgmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                        (Community trade mark — Word mark ‘EuroHealth’ —
(Community trade mark — Word marks UNIVERSALTELE-                       Absolute ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) and (c) of
FONBUCH and UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZ-                                                   Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
EICHNIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive
  character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/14)
                         (2001/C 259/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG (DKV),
                                                                        established in Cologne (Germany), represented by S. von
                                                                        Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
In Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schen-
VerlagsgmbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), represented by          nen and S. Bonne) — action brought against the decision of
H.G. Zeiner and B. Heaman-Dunn, lawyers, with an address                the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 October
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                 1999 (Case R 19/1999-1), concerning the registration of the
(Agents: S. Bonne, A. von Mühlendahl and E. Joly) —                     word mark ‘EuroHealth’ as a Community trade mark — the
application for annulment of two decisions of the Third Board           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 October 1999 in                  J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Cases R 351/1999-3 and R 352/1999-3 refusing registration               a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
of the words UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSAL-
KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS as Community trade
marks — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura             1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the                   for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                 Designs) of 15 October 1999 (Case R 19/1999-1) in so far
                                                                              as it concerns services falling within the category of ‘financial
                                                                              affairs’;
1.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                        2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.00.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.


C 211/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/98 (1)                    ordered the removal from the register of Case T-180/99,
                                                                         Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 211/54)                                  ties.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-194/98: Scan Office Design S.A. v Commission of the
European Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-221/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-4/99 (1)                     By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 211/55)                                  has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-221/99:
                                                                         Gitte Rassmussen v Council of the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
By order of 13 April 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-4/99,
OGT-Fruchthandelgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the
European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                       Removal from the register of Case T-21/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case        T-180/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 3 May 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                        (2000/C 211/56)                                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-21/00 David
                                                                         Crabbe v Centre Européen pour le Développement de la
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Formation Professionnelle (CEDEFOP).
By order of 13 April 2000 the Court of First Instance of the
European Communites (single judge: R.M. Moura Ramos) has                 (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-360/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie VoMiGen v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie ‘VoMiGen’ v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division
   (Case C-360/08)
   (2008/C 285/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Applicants:

               1.

               Stichting Greenpeace Nederland

               2.

               Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie ‘VoMiGen’

      Defendant: Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer

      Other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the location of release of genetically modified organisms which cannot be regarded as confidential by virtue of Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), in view inter alia of the objective and general scheme of that Directive, be interpreted as referring to the parcel of land in the land register, or is it sufficient for a larger geographical area to be indicated?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the indication of a larger geographical area is sufficient, what circumstances may be included when it is decided how the area is to be indicated?

                           (b)

                           Is Directive 2003/4/EC (2) relevant in the determination of the size of the area to be indicated?

                           (c)

                           Does an area twenty times larger than the individual trial fields satisfy the principle of proportionality?

               3.

               Is the principle of proportionality satisfied if, pursuant to the policy revised on 17 July 2008, a general indication of areas one hundred times the individual trial fields is chosen?

               4.

               If only a reference to an entry in the land register is sufficient, can, despite the rule laid down in Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC, a justification for treating confidentially information on the precise location of release none the less lie in the circumstances defined in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Does Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC contain an exhaustive list of justifications?

                           (b)

                           If so, can the protection of firms, including the persons and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands be subsumed under one of the justifications set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

               6.

               If the answers to Questions 5(a) and (b) are in the affirmative, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times the size of the trial field, in the light of Article 4(2)(h) of Directive 2003/4/EC, proportionate having regard to the protection of private interests (protection of firms, including the persons and products therein), and of public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands)?

               7.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 5(a) is in the negative, do the protection of firms, including the persons and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands form a permissible justification?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 7(a) is in the affirmative, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times the size of the trial field proportionate having regard to the protection of private interests (protection of firms, including the persons and products therein) and of public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands)?

      (1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, p. 26).


title: Case C-67/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren (Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Inheritance tax — National rules not allowing inheritance tax in respect of capital claims, paid by an heir in one Member State, to be credited against inheritance tax payable in another Member State where the owner of the assets was resident at the time of death — Double taxation — Restriction — None)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   (Case C-67/08) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Inheritance tax - National rules not allowing inheritance tax in respect of capital claims, paid by an heir in one Member State, to be credited against inheritance tax payable in another Member State where the owner of the assets was resident at the time of death - Double taxation - Restriction - None)
   (2009/C 82/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Margarete Block

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 56(1) and 58(1)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty — National inheritance tax legislation — Double taxation resulting from the impossibility of crediting tax levied in another Member State against national tax where the inherited assets situated in that other Member State are in the form of a bank account
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — as regards the assessment of inheritance tax payable by an heir who is resident in that Member State in respect of capital claims against a financial institution in another Member State — does not provide for inheritance tax paid in that other Member State to be credited against inheritance tax payable in the first Member State where the person whose estate is being administered was, at the time of death, resident in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.