title: Case C-60/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014  — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — European Union’s own resources — Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom — Article 8 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 — Refusal to make own resources available to the European Union — Erroneous Binding Tariff Information documents — Imports of fresh garlic as frozen garlic — Imputability of the error to the national customs authorities — Financial liability of the Member States)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-60/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - European Union’s own resources - Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom - Article 8 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 - Refusal to make own resources available to the European Union - Erroneous Binding Tariff Information documents - Imports of fresh garlic as frozen garlic - Imputability of the error to the national customs authorities - Financial liability of the Member States))
   2014/C 159/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and L. Flynn, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brighouse and J. Beeko, Agents, assisted by K. Beal, QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(3) TEU, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom, of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 253, p. 42) and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2028/2004 of 16 November 2004

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to make available the amount of GBP 20 061 462,11 corresponding to the duties payable on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the Communities’ own resources and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2028/2004 of 16 November 2004;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic (Case C-334/98)

text:
24.10.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/15
administrative measure with the operation of services of               not only to the product covered by the authorisation
general economic interest, but is sufficient that that                 to place the corresponding medicinal product on the
responsibility results from public-law contracts entered               market' but also to the derivatives (salts and esters) of
into, as here, between the body in question and the public             the product, bearing in mind that, under Article 1 of
authorities. Furthermore, it is not necessary, in order for            Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, product' must be
Article 90(2) of the Treaty to apply, for the body to hold a           construed as meaning the active ingredient or
monopoly in the operation of the services in question.                 combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
                                                                       product'?
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.
                                                                   D. If the above extension to the derivatives of the active
                                                                       ingredient is accepted, must Article 4 of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       protection conferred by the SPC is not impaired by
                                                                       the health authority measure granting marketing
                                                                       authorisation and in particular by the active ingredient
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                  indicated in that authorisation as corresponding to the
dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti dell'Ufficio Italiano               authorised medicinal product?
Brevetti e Marchi by order of 16 December 1997 in the
case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e
                             Marchi
                                                                   E. On the assumption, once again, that the suggested
                        (Case C-333/98)                                extension of the protection conferred by the SPC to
                                                                       the derivatives of the active ingredient is accepted,
                          (98/C 327/23)                                must the final phrase of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       supplementary protection may be relied on for each of
                                                                       the medicinal products in so far as they have been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       authorised by the health authority before the expiry of
European Communities by order of 16 December 1997
                                                                       the certificate, or is the first authorisation of the
from the Commissione dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti
                                                                       medicinal product corresponding to the active
dell'Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Committee hearing
                                                                       ingredient sufficient?
Appeals against measures of the Italian Patent and
Trademark Office), which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e         F. Finally, if the active ingredient corresponding to the
Marchi (the Italian Patent and Trademark Office) on the                medicinal product which was the subject of the first
following questions:                                                   marketing authorisation is a salt or an ester of the
                                                                       patented substance, does the protection conferred by
                                                                       the SPC also extend to that substance and to its other
                                                                       derivatives?
A. May the recitals in the preamble to a Community
    regulation (in this case, recitals 13 and 17 in the
    preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1610/96) (1)            (1) OJ L 198, 8.8.1996, p. 30.
    be recognised as being prescriptive, and not solely as         (2) OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1.
    providing guidance for the interpretation of the
    regulation which they introduce?
B. On the assumption that the rules of authentic
    interpretation' are prescriptive and do not merely
    have an interpretative function, may recital 17 in             Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of
    the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 be                      the European Communities against Italian Republic
    recognised as having the status of a rule for the
    authentic interpretation of the provisions of Council                                 (Case C-334/98)
    Regulation (EC) No 1768/92 (2) to which that recital
    refers and, in particular, Article 4 of Regulation (EC)                                 (98/C 327/24)
    No 1768/92?
                                                                   An action against Italian Republic was brought before
C. If it is accepted that recital 17 in the preamble to            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 does have the suggested             11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
    status as a rule of authentic interpretation, must             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 be construed                Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
    as meaning that the protection conferred by a                  in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    supplementary protection certificate (SPC) extends             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       administrative action necessary to comply with
                                                                       Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event,                  the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
    by failing to communicate to the Commission                        purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
    the provisions laid down by law, regulation or                     relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
    administrative action necessary to comply with                     properties on a timeshare basis, the Italian Republic
                                                                       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    Ð Commission Directive 95/12/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household washing           Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
         machines (1),
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð Commission Directive 95/13/EC of 23 May 1995
         implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with
         regard to energy labelling of household electric          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which a
         tumble driers (2),                                        directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                   each Member State to which it is addressed, obliges
                                                                   Member States to respect the time-limits for
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfill its obligations
                                                                   implementation prescribed by directives. When the time-
    under those directives;
                                                                   limit expired on 30 April 1997 the Italian Republic had
                                                                   not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     directive referred to in the forms of order sought by the
                                                                   Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in accordance with which
a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
obliges Member States to respect the time-limits
for implementation prescribed by directives. When the
time-limit expired on 1 March 1996 the Italian Republic            Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission
had not adopted the provisions necessary to comply with                   of the European Communities against Ireland
the directives referred to in the forms of order sought by                                (Case C-345/98)
the Commission.
                                                                                (98/C 327/26)
(1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
                                                                   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities on 22 September
                                                                   1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                   represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbaek, a member of its
                                                                   Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                   seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of               exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
    the European Communities against Italian Republic              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                       (Case C-335/98)                             Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner.
                         (98/C 327/25)
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
                                                                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                       comply with Directive 94/9/EC (1) of the European
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                       Parliament and Council, of 23 March 1994, on the
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       concerning equipment and protective systems intended
                                                                       for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, Ireland
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                       and
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
    failing to communicate to the Commission the                   Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of 24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault (Case C-218/98)

text:
C 258/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
least equal to the prices on 1 December 1993 increased by            27 November 1987 in conjunction with Article 29(1) of
20 %.                                                                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (2) of 22 July
                                                                     1985 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional
                                                                     amount of 20 % of the export refund concerned is to be
                                                                     levied even where the goods put into storage pending
According to the Commission, the conflicting nature of
                                                                     export with a view to advance payment of the refund
the provisions of Article 45 of Law No 2127/1993 gives
                                                                     pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/
rise to doubt as regards the rights and duties of those
                                                                     80 (3) of 4 March 1980 in conjunction with Articles 25
concerned.
                                                                     and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 are not exported
                                                                     Ð as originally planned Ð but are put back into free
                                                                     circulation in the Community following storage and the
In fact producers and importers are not free to determine            application for payment (Article 29(2) of Regulation
the selling price of their products, since there is a limit,         (EEC) No 3665/87) is withdrawn?
that is to say a minimum price which must be complied
with. That limit is fixed by the Minister for Finance and
corresponds to the selling price of those products as                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
determined for the previous year, increased by 20 %. The             (2) OJ L 205 of 3.8.1985, p. 5.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 62 of 7.3.1980, p. 5.
fact that the fixing of that limit takes place on the basis of
the selling prices which the producers or importers have
determined for previous years is not sufficient to show
that there is no restriction on freedom to determine prices.
Producers or importers do not have freedom to form their
prices but are bound to align them with the prices which
were decided upon in a given year. They cannot,
consequently, sell their products at a price lower than the
minimum price, as fixed by the Minister for Finance.                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and
                                                                                243 others v SA Renault
Consequently, in so far as the Hellenic Republic prescribes
by ministerial decision a minimum retail selling price for                                  (Case C-218/98)
manufactured tobacco, it prevents manufacturers and
importers from determining that price freely, as they are                                     (98/C 258/42)
entitled to do under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/
EC, which replaced Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC.
(1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre (Industrial Tribunal, Le Havre) of
                                                                     24 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                     on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault on
                                                                     the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ                      Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid
                        Nordfleisch AG                               down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and
                                                                     subsequent legislation authorise payment to a pregnant
                       (Case C-217/98)                               woman only, and not to the father of the child, of the sum
                                                                     of FF 7 500 when she takes maternity leave, given that:
                        (98/C 258/41)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               such payment is provided for by the last part of Article 18
European      Communities        by   an    order     of   the       of the collective agreement of 5 July 1991 on social
Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Financial Court) of 7 April             benefits for Renault employees;
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the following
question:                                                            Article 19(2) of the agreement provides that employees'
                                                                     salaries continue to be paid during maternity leave?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 33(1)                 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1)                  of


title: Case T-506/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/17

         Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
   (Case T-506/11)
   2011/C 362/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 53/2005-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for goods in Class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: another earlier sign, namely the company name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’, which is valid in Germany

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the use of the subsequent mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ may not be prohibited and there is no right to prohibit use throughout Germany under Paragraph 12 of the Markengesetz (Law on Trade Marks), and infringement of the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should have waited for a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice and the res judicata of a judgment in the German proceedings to have the trade mark removed from the register.


               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/1

         (Text with EEA relevance)
   2009/C 102/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

      OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

      OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

      OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

      OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Walter Gill against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-90/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/35
     prices prevailing at the time and the fact that it was             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     impossible for a forwarding agent to verify the accuracy
     of answers given in declarations,                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— breach of the principle of proportionality. The                       The applicant, a former Commission official suffering total
     obligation deemed by the decision to be incumbent on               permanent invalidity, criticizes the Commission for failing
     the forwarding agent, requiring him to examine the                 to disclose to him certain detail concerning his state of
     accuracy of the information supplied by the client for the         health, in particular for not advising him in due time of the
     purposes of the declaration and to ensure that the client          illness diagnosed by its doctors, and for keeping him in a
     is not acting fraudulently, is disproportionate,                   post incompatible with his state of health .
— infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
                                                                        He states that, being afflicted with an obstructive
     on Human Rights .
                                                                        bronco-pneumopathic condition, the applicant applied for
(M OJ No L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                        retirement on grounds of invalidity under the second
                                                                        paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and it was
                                                                        not until 27 March 1987, nearly six years after being lodged,
                                                                        that that application was examined by the Invalidity
                                                                        Committee, which concluded that he was not suffering from
Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Walter Gill against                  an occupational illness . It was only during that procedure
        the Commission of the European Communities                      that the applicant learned that the Commission's medical
                                                                        officers had , in particular when examining him prior to
                          ( Case T-90/95 )                              recruitment, diagnosed a chronic pulmonary illness .
                            ( 95/C 137/76 )
                                                                        He claims in particular, in that regard, that, by failing to
                 (Language of the case: French)                         inform him or his doctor of the results of the examinations
                                                                        carried out by its doctors, the Commission unlawfully
An action against the Commission of the European                        deprived him of the opportunity of deciding, in full
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       knowledge of the facts , whether or not to accept
Instance of the European Communities on 29 March 1995                   employment of a kind which might aggravate his state of
by Walter Gill, of Sudbury (United Kingdom ), represented               health .
by Jean-Noel Louis , Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     Furthermore, in view of the incoherence of the statement of
                                                                        the reasons on which the successive decisions of the
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener .                                                              appointing authority were based and the changes in the
                                                                        versions thereof occurring in the course of the various
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            procedures, there was what in reality amounted to a total
                                                                        lack of any statement of reasons .
— annul the Commission decision of 26 September 1994
     expressly rejecting his claim for compensation of                  Finally, since the appointing authority did not supply to the
     10 May 1994 under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff                    applicant, despite an express request from his adviser,
     Regulations,                                                       specific information regarding the measures adopted by it in
                                                                        order to preserve his anonymity, and having regard to the
— annul, so far as necessary, the Commission decision of                documents     disclosed     to  him  in  the  course   of the
     28 December 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and             pre-litigation procedure , the applicant can but conclude that
     his more detailed complaint,                                       no proper measure was taken and that his right to respect of
                                                                        his private life was scornfully disregarded by the
— order the defendant:                                                  administration .
     — to pay, by way of compensation for material and
          non-material          damage      suffered      through
          non-disclosure of information as to his state of
          health, a sum equal to eight years ' remuneration to
          which he would have been entitled if he had not been
                                                                        Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          obliged , as a result of the successive wrongful acts         Christiane Impens against the Council of the European
          committed , to apply for retirement on grounds of                                            Union
          invalidity,
                                                                                ( Case T-91/95 )
     — to pay compensatory interest on that sum at the rate                                      ( 95/C 137/77 )
          of 8 % per annum as from the date of his
          application,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     — to pay the applicant the sum of ECU 10 000 , by way
          of redress for the non-material damage suffered as a          An action against the Council of the European Union was
          result of the fact that, without reservation and              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
          against his will, his application and complaint were          Communities on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          made public,                                                  Christiane Impens, of Wolvertem and Brussels (Belgium ),


title: Case T-229/06: Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Kretschmer v Parliament

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/50

         Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Kretschmer v Parliament
   (Case T-229/06)
   (2006/C 294/105)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elfriede Kretschmer (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               Annul the decision, brought to the applicant's notice on 14 June 2006, not to grant her payment of the daily subsistence allowance in full with effect from 16 October 2003 and determining Overijse (Belgium) as her place of recruitment;

               —

               as a consequence, order the defendant to pay the following sums:

               —

                           (i)

                           by way of daily subsistence allowance:

                                       —

                                       EUR 50 per day in respect of the period from 16 October 2003 to 30 April 2004 in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 2 June 2003;

                                       —

                                       EUR 84 per day in respect of the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 March 2005 in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 3 May 2004;

                                       —

                                       EUR 84,35 per day with effect from 1 May 2005 in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 7 March 2005;

               —

                           (ii)

                           EUR 72,39 by way of supplementary monthly allowance in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 7 March 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest on the sums referred to at (i) and (ii) from the respective due dates until the date of actual payment. The interest rate must be the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the token sum of one euro as compensation for non-material damage caused to the applicant on account of the faults committed as a result of delays in the management of the case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a national expert on secondment to the European Parliament. Her initial contract for the period from 16 October 2003 to 15 October 2004 was renewed for the period from 16 October 2004 to 15 October 2005 and then again for a further two-year period from 16 October 2005 to 15 October 2007. By her application, she seeks annulment of the decision, brought to her attention by e-mail on 14 June 2006, not to grant her payment of the daily subsistence allowance in full with effect from 16 October 2003 and determining Overijse (Belgium) as her place of recruitment.
   In support of her claim, the applicant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the 2002, 2004 and 2005 Ruless on national experts on secondment (SNEs) to the Parliament. The applicant maintains that, at the time when she was first recruited, her place of residence was in Germany and not in Belgium, which was considered by the Parliament authorities to be her place of recruitment. She submits that her secondment was approved by agreement between her authority from which she came (the Minister-President of the Land of North-Rhine Westphalia) and the Commission when she was first engaged as a temporary agent for the period from 1 September 2002 to 31 July 2003, which, in her view, constitutes evidence of her place of residence prior to her recruitment and at the times when her contracts were renewed. The applicant also maintains that the fact that she moved to Brussels to take up her duties as SNE and registered as a temporary resident in Brussels in accordance with Belgian law, cannot be regarded as constituting a change in ‘place of residence’, which presupposes fixed, permanent and settled establishment. In support of her position, she relies on the fact that she is subject to fixed-term recruitment for a maximum period of six years and that, at the end of that period she will, in principle, return to Germany to resume her duties as judge in the national courts. She therefore considers that throughout the period of employment as SNE her place of residence has been Germany and not Brussels.
   With regard to the claim for compensation, the applicant considers that the European Parliament exceeded a reasonable period in responding to her requests for clarification and for a review of her situation and, furthermore, that such conduct is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Code of good administrative conduct. The applicant seeks an order that the defendant pay the token sum of one euro as compensation for the non-material damage thus caused. The applicant also seeks default interest on the sums due to her under the 2002, 2004 and 2005 rules on SNEs.


title: Case T-551/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — BSI v Council

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/28

         Action brought on 19 October 2011 — BSI v Council
   (Case T-551/11)
   2011/C 370/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Brugola Service International Srl (BSI) (Cassano Magnago, Italy) (represented by: S. Baratti and M. Farneti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6);

               —

               Declare inapplicable, under Article 277 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51);

               —

               Declare inapplicable, under Article 277 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1);

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 should be annulled under Article 263 TFEU, since legally and logically it is based on Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, whose inapplicability the applicant invokes under Article 277 TFEU on the basis of the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning the illegality of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and, as a consequence, of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on account of unlawfulness in the form of an infringement of Articles 6(10) and 9(2) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in so far as a duty is imposed on a national scale for suppliers located in non-market-economy countries which cannot show that the requirements of Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 are met.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the illegality of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on the grounds of an inadequate statement of reasons and a manifest error of assessment, since the Commission incorrectly made the grant of individual treatment conditional upon the Chinese producers showing that the requirements laid down in Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 were met, in breach of Articles 6(10) and 9(2) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation given, in Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, to the concept of ‘major proportion’ of Community industry, referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, was unlawful in that it infringed Articles 4(1) and 3(1) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and in that it entailed a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, concerning the illegality of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on account of unlawfulness in the form of an infringement of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) and (4) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and of Articles 2(10), 6(8) and 20(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, as well as on account of a manifest error of assessment, since the Commission determined the dumping margin on the basis of an inappropriate comparison between the normal value and the export price and failed to communicate, in sufficient time, to the producers of the People’s Republic of China the information necessary to ensure that they could exercise their rights of defence.

               5.

               Furthermore, the applicant also claims that Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 is unlawful in that, independently, it is vitiated by a lack of proper inquiry and by an inadequate statement of reasons, since the Commission failed to provide information about the average export prices, products and product categories on the basis of which normal value was determined and the dumping margin thus calculated.


title: Case C-437/04: Action brought on 15 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/36

         Action brought on 15 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-437/04)
   (2004/C 300/69)
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by imposing a tax which infringes the European Communities' fiscal immunity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The imposition by an Ordonnance Régionale of 23 July 1992 of a regional tax on occupiers of buildings and owners of real property rights over certain buildings situated within the territory of the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale is an infringement of the Communities' fiscal immunity under Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965. That Ordonnance has innovated by comparison to the previous legislation by adding to the tax imposed on occupiers, a tax on owners in the event of commercial occupancy of a building with more than a certain floor area. As the drafting history of the Ordonnance of 23 July 1992 shows, such taxation of owners is, in fact, a legal device intended to circumvent the fiscal immunity of certain persons or institutions occupying buildings. It is on those persons and among them the Communities that the economic burden of the tax actually falls, either because of contractual stipulations in leases, under which they are to bear all rates and taxes on the building, unless they obtain exemption therefrom as regards the lessor, or because of its effect on the rental. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, any legal provision which, without expressly subjecting the Community to a tax, has the express aim and effect of making the Community, even indirectly but nonetheless compulsorily, bear a tax, infringes the principle of immunity.


title: Case C-166/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 — Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland — Choice of legal basis)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-166/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 - Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland - Choice of legal basis)
   2009/C 256/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Klavina, L. Visaggio and A. Troupiotis, Agents)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Moore, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagen, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent and D.W. Anderson QC, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010) (OJ 2006 L 409, p. 86 and corrigendum in OJ 2007 L 36, p. 31) — Choice of legal basis — Article 308 EC (Consultation of the Parliament/Unanimity of the Council) — Strengthening of economic and social cohesion — Specific actions necessary in addition to those carried out in the context of the Structural Funds — Consolidation of the peace process in Northern Ireland — Article 159 EC (codecision procedure)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010).

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1968/2006 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on an appropriate legal basis.

               3.

               Orders that the annulment of Regulation No 1968/2006 shall not affect the validity of payments made or of undertakings given under that regulation.

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own respective costs.

               5.

               Orders Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-847/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — GHC v Commission (Environment — Protection of the ozone layer — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Determination of a reference value — Allocation of quotas — Duty to state reasons — Method of calculation)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — GHC v Commission
   (Case T-847/14) (1)

   ((Environment - Protection of the ozone layer - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Determination of a reference value - Allocation of quotas - Duty to state reasons - Method of calculation))
   (2015/C 262/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GHC Gerling, Holz & Co. Handels GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Lang, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU of 31 October 2014 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017 for each producer or importer who has reported placing on the market hydrofluorocarbons under Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 318, p. 28), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Commission Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU of 31 October 2014 determining, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, reference values for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017 for each producer or importer who has reported placing on the market hydrofluorocarbons under Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, is hereby annulled in so far as it concerns GHC Gerling, Holz & Co. Handels GmbH;

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 1995 in Case C-170/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directives 90/219/EEC and 90/220/EEC - Genetically modified organisms)

text:
No C 229/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 9 . 95
      in the event of a radiological emergency, the Italian                  modified organisms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that               fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
      Directive;
                                                                       2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                       H OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
( ! ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 357, 7 . 12 . 1989 , p . 31 .                            ( 3 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p . 15 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        of 5 July 1995
                           of 29 June 1995                             in Case C-21/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
       in Case C-l 70/94: Commission of the European                                           European Union (*)
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)                      (Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                 oftaxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage ofgoods by
Non-transposition of Directives 90/219/EEC and                         road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
       90/220/EEC — Genetically modified organisms)                    infrastructures — Reconsultation of the European
                                                                                Parliament)
                            ( 95/C 229/14 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/ 15 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 70/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande ) v. Hellenic                In Case C-21 /94 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Nana                   Schoo and Jannis Pantalis ) v. Council of the European
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to          Union ( Agents : Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu Lopes
adopt, or not notifying within the prescribed period, the              Sabino ) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and by the United
comply with Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
1990 on the contained use of genetically modified                      Lucinda Hudson and Lindsey Nicholl ) — application for the
micro-organisms (2 ) and Council Directive 90/220/EEC of               annulment of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment           1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
of genetically modified organisms (3 ), the Hellenic Republic          certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the         tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures ( 2 ) —
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de                   F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ),                  P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
Judges: F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,           Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), J. L.
gave a judgment on 29 June 1995 , the operative part of                Murray, D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and
which is as follows :                                                  L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 July 1995 in which
                                                                       it :
1 . declares that in not adopting within the prescribed
      periods the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            1 . annuls Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
      90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of                    1 993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
      genetically modified micro-organisms and Council                       certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road
      Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the                           and tolls and charges for the use of certain
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically                 infrastructures;


title: Case T-168/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/40

         Action brought on 16 March 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs v Commission
   (Case T-168/17)
   (2017/C 151/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Schuster, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the action for annulment and annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017 concerning the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

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

               1.

               Fist plea in law: infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular a failure to state reasons

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the law of the Treaties
               The applicant submits that the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and applied by the Commission are unlawful, since they conflict with higher-ranking primary law, in particular with Articles 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               Furthermore, the primacy of application of higher-ranking primary law over conflicting secondary law also applies in EU law, with the result that, for this reason, too, the Commission should not have applied the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

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


title: Case T-519/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — mobile.international v OHIM — Kommission (PL mobile.eu)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/67

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — mobile.international v OHIM — Kommission (PL mobile.eu)
   (Case T-519/12)
   2013/C 26/132
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should,

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in Case R 1401/2011-1 in respect of the following goods and services;

                           Class 9

                           :

                           Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers, computer peripheral devices and computer programs (included in class 9); all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

                           Class 16

                           :

                           Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials (included in Class 16); printed matter; photographs; stationery; typewriters and office machines (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (included in Class 16); plastic material for packaging, namely covers, bags, boxes and foils; all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

                           Class 35

                           :

                           Advertising; business administration; business management services; office functions; all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

                           Class 36

                           :

                           Insurance; arranging of insurance; financial affairs; credit brokerage; monetary affairs; financial management; all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

                           Class 38

                           :

                           Telecommunications and in particular services on the Internet; collating, providing and transmission of messages, information, images and texts; electronic advertising; all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

                           Class 42

                           :

                           Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; design and development of computer hardware and software; rental of computer software; provision of search engines for the Internet; all aforementioned goods only in relation to an online marketplace for the purchase and sale of vehicles, trailers and vehicle accessories.

               —

               in the alternative, annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in Case R 1401/2011-1 in respect of services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 to the extent referred to above;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘PL mobile.eu’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 8 307 779

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The European Commission

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The Community trade mark constitutes a heraldic imitation of the mullets of the European Union

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Cancellation Division annulled and the Community trade mark declared invalid

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Paris Convention

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations


title: Case T-91/06: Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/22

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-91/06)
   (2006/C 190/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Nikolaos Theofilopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Miliarakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               order the Commission to return letters of guarantee Nos 81928/6.12.1995, 819837/6.12.1995, 819838/6.12.1995, 822611/22.12.1995 and 830671/17.3.1996 of the Tamio Sintaxion Mikhanikon and Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon (TSMEDE);

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 202 697,72 or, in the alternative, EUR 199 219,69 in respect of material damage arising up to February 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant states that, following his own guarantee, the five letters of guarantee were issued by TSMEDE for the companies ‘Impetus EPE’ and ‘Impetus AEVE’, on which he is President and Managing Director. Those letters of guarantee were lodged by the above companies with the Commission in connection with contracts which they had entered into with the Commission. The applicant maintains that the Commission unlawfully and culpably refused to return those letters of guarantee, although it had no reason to retain them. He considers that that unlawful and culpable conduct of the Commission's bodies justifies this application, since he himself is required to pay TSMEDE the amounts in respect of which those letters were issued.


title: Case T-283/06 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2006 — Dairo Air Services v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2006 — Dairo Air Services v Commission
   (Case T-283/06 R)
   (2006/C 331/99)

      Language of the case: French

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


title: Case T-530/11: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVALRY) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/22

         Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVALRY)
   (Case T-530/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 399/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Paisley, Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2011 (Case R-2334/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd and Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case T-319/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2014  — ABN Amro Group v Commission (State aid — Financial sector — Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Conditions of authorisation of the aid — Prohibition of carrying out acquisitions — Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Duty to state reasons — Right of property)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2014 — ABN Amro Group v Commission
   (Case T-319/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Financial sector - Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Conditions of authorisation of the aid - Prohibition of carrying out acquisitions - Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Right of property))
   2014/C 159/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ABN Amro Group NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Annulment in part of Commission Decision 2011/823/EU of 5 April 2011 on the measures C 11/09 (ex NN 53b/08, NN 2/10 and N 19/10) implemented by the Dutch State for ABN Amro Group NV (created following the merger between Fortis Bank Nederland and ABN Amro N) (OJ 2011 L 333, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ABN Amro Group NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-227/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/15

         Action brought on 25 August 2006 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-227/06)
   (2006/C 249/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: B. Conway, Barrister and S. Daly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 of 16 June 2006 as it fails to classify the applicant's product for tariff classification purposes under the Combined Nomenclature by reference to the objective characteristics and qualities of the product.

               —

               In the alternative, annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 as it was enacted by the Commission on foot of an abuse of powers by the Commission and/or an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

               —

               Declare that the customs classification of the product is to be determined pursuant to the intrinsic characteristic of the product which is that it is in the nature of an automatic data processing machine and so falls to be classified within the terms of chapter 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature.

               —

               In the alternative, declare that the essential characteristic of the product is its specific capacity to generate and perform mathematical calculations specified by the user at the time of purchase and that is so falls to be classified as a calculating device within the terms of chapter 8470 of the Combined Nomenclature.

               —

               Declare that in accordance with the accepted classification rules of goods for Community customs purposes the essential characteristic of the product is not that of a security device or the granting of access to records whether stored on an automatic data processing machine or otherwise.

               —

               Order the payment to the applicant of such customs duty as has been paid by the applicant in respect of the importation of the product into the Community since the coming into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 together with the payment of interest to the applicant.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is importing and selling the product ‘RSA SecurID authenticator’ in the Community. The company seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation No 888/2006 (1) by which this product was classified under heading 8543 in the Combined Nomenclature.
   The applicant contends that, in enacting Regulation No 888/2006, the Commission has failed to identify the essential characteristics of the product and it has misdescribed the product as ‘a security device’ and as a device ‘[which] allows the user access to the records stored on an ADP machine’ in the description of the goods in the annex to Regulation No 888/2006. The applicant alleges that these failures are errors of law which should lead to the annulment of the regulation.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 of 16 June 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 165, p. 6).


title: Removal from the register of C-121/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-46/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95            I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 87/7
     down a procedure to be applied in the future for the               with the Directive referred to in the form of order sought by
     classification of new items, without departing from the            the Commission.
     method applicable pursuant to Article 203 (4 ) and ( 6 ),
     the three institutions concerned established a framework
                                                                        (!) OJ No L 357, 7. 12 . 1989, p. 31 .
     with which they are not entitled unilaterally to interfere.
     Although the Council agreed in 1993 , at the request of
     the other arm of the budgetary authority, thereafter to
     consider headings 2 and 3 of the agricultural
     expenditure items as non-compulsory expenditure, the
     expenditure linked to the Agricultural Guarantee Fund
     (that is to say, that set out in subsection B1 — EAGGF of          Action brought on 28 February 1995 by the Commission of
     the budget) remains compulsory expenditure in                        the European Communities against the French Republic
     accordance with the 1982 classification.
                                                                                (Case C-52/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/14
(!) OJ No L 369, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No C 194, 28 . 7. 1982, p . 1 .
(3 ) OJ No C 331 , 7. 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .                               An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        28 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-46/95 )
                                                                         1 . declare that,
                            ( 95/C 87/13
                                                                              — by not provisionally prohibiting the fishing by its
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                               vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES zone VIII so as to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                               ensure compliance with the fishing quotas allocated
Communities on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of                              to it in 1991 and 1992, and
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.                            — by not taking action against the persons responsible
Cusack, acting as Agent, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, with an                       for fishing and fishing-related activities carried out
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios                       in respect of such stocks following the imposition of
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                the fishing prohibition enacted by the Commission
                                                                                in 1991 and 1992,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                 under Article 11 (2 ) and Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC )
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                      No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for
     implement Council Directive 8 9/6 18/Euratom f 1 ) of                    fishing activities ( a ) in conjunction with Article 3 of, and
     27 November 1989 on informing the general public                         the Annexes to, Regulations (EEC) No 3926/90 (2) and
     about health protection measures to be applied and steps                 (EEC ) No 3882/91 (3 ).
     to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, or
     by failing to inform the Commission of the measures                 2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     taken by it to comply with the said directive, the Grand
     Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the Treaty establishing the European Atomic
     Energy Community,
                                                                         It is clear from the wording of Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation
                                                                         ( EEC ) No 2241/87 that the Member States are required to
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                         take the necessary measures in order provisionally to
     costs .
                                                                         prohibit all fishing activities before the quota is exhausted.
                                                                        The French authorities have at no time taken any measures
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      provisionally to halt the fishing in question.
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a Directive          The Commission further considers that the continuation by
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each             French vessels of fishing and fishing-related activities in
Member State, requires the Member States to observe the                  relation to the fish stocks at issue following the imposition
time limits for transposition laid down in Directives.                   of the fishing prohibitions enacted by the Commission in
Although the time limit in the present case expired on                   1991 and 1992 constitutes an infringement by the persons
27 November 1991 , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                     responsible for those vessels. Having established such
not adopted the provisions necessary in order to comply                  infringements, the French authorities were required, under


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 May 1997 in Case T-145/95: Proderec - Formação e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Contested measure withdrawn in the course of proceedings - No need to give a decision)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/ 15
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Garcia-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                       of 28 May 1997                                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 June
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-145/95 : Proderec — Formação e Desenvolvi
mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v. Commission of the                  1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                  European Communities (')
(Action for annulment — Contested measure withdrawn                  2. The defendant shall pay the costs.
in the course of proceedings — No need to give a
                             decision)                               H OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
                           97/C 228/31 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-145/95 : Proderec — Forma^ao e Desenvolvi                 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Jill Valerie Hanna
mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE, whose registered                           against the Commission of the European Communities
office is in Almada ( Portugal ), represented by Manuel                                           ( Case T-117/97)
Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, against Commission of the                                              ( 97/C 228/33 )
European Communities ( Agents : initially Ana Maria Alves
Vieira and Giinter Wilms, subsequently Maria Teresa                                     (Language of the case: French)
Figueira and Knut Simonsson ) — application for the
annulment, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of a                  An action against the Commission of the European
 Commission decision notified to the applicant by a letter           Communities was brought before the Court of First
of 11 May 1995 amending and reducing the amount                      Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
initially approved and granted by an earlier decision                by Jill Valerie Hanna, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
 approving File Nos 881311 PI and 880249 P3 — the                    represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
 Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
 Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.           ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 May 1997, the
 operative part of which is as follows :                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.                            — annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 O OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                    — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                             decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                         of 3 June 1997
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 in Case T-58/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser               Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
  viços SA v. Commission of the European Communities (')
               (Case not proceeding to judgment)                      ( 5 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                          ( 97/C 228/32
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
 In Case T-58/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser               Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Richardus
 vi^os SA, having its registered office in Lisbon, represented        Ritterbeeks against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and
 Miguel Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                                           ( Case T-l 18/97 )
 for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Louis                                                     97/C 228/34 )
 Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
 the European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa                                    (Language of the case: French)
 Fialho and Knut Simonsson ) — application for the
 annulment of the decision by which the Commission                    An action against the Commission of the European
 approved the request for payment of the balance relating              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 to File 88 0412 P3 of the European Social Fund — the                  Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R.             by Richardus Ritterbeeks, residing at Landgraaf


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 June 1996 in Case T-75/95: Günzler Aluminium GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Commission decision refusing remission of import duties)

text:
20 . 7. 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 21 0/ 13
4 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear the            with an address for service in Luxembourg a the Chambers
      costs, with the exception of those of the intervener,            of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. Council of the
      which shall bear its own costs .                                 European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio
                                                                       Tanca ) — application for annulment of Council Decision
(!) OJ No C 246 , 24 . 9 . 1992 .                                      94/660/EC, Euratom, of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       No L 257, 1994 , p . 20 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P.
                                                                       Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June
                          of 5 June 1996                               1996 , in which it:
in     Case   T-75 /95 :      Giinzler Aluminium      GmbH     v.
        Commission of the European Communities (')                     1 , rejects the application;
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing
                  remission of import duties)
                                                                       2 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 210/31 )                                  costs .
                (Language of the case: German)                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-75/95 : Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, established at
Ostfildern, Germany, represented by Jurgen StrauE,
Rechtsanwalt, 11 Uhlandstrafêe, Stuttgart, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Claudia
Schmidt ) — application for annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 November 1994, document K(91 1)3006                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
final, concerning remission of import duties, which is
addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany — the Court                                       of 11 June 1996
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët,           in Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo v . Commission of
President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor,                            the European Communities ( 1 )
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Transfers ofpart of an official's remuneration
on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                                          in the currency of a Member State other than that in which
                                                                               the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it                                      96/C 210/33 )
      seeks that directions be issued to the Commission;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
      unfounded;
                                                                       In Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo, an official of the
3 , orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                       Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia
( ] ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      Porras, of the Salamanca Bar v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Amparo Alcover San
                                                                       Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Carlos Gômez de la
                                                                       Cruz ) — application for ( 1 ) annulment of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaint concerning the transfer of part of the
                                                                       applicant's remuneration to a building account in Danish
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               crowns ( 2 ) confirmation of the applicant's entitlement to
                           of 6 June 1996                              such a transfer ( 3 ) damages — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-3 82/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria              ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.
Italiana ( Confindustria ) and Aldo Romoli v. Council of the           Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Principal
                       European Union ( 1 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                         11 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
                              Committee)
                            ( 96/C 210/32 )                             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        2 , each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
 In Case T-382/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria
                                                                        (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 Italiana ( Confindustria ), established in Rome , and Aldo
 Romoli, residing in Milan, represented by Fausto Capelli, of
 the Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar,