title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Anne-Marie Mathieu against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-34/97)

text:
No C 142/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Anne-Marie                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                          ( Case T-34/97 )                             Case T- 16/97 (').
                           ( 97/C 142/38 )
                                                                       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Anne-Marie Mathieu, residing in Brussels,                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Liliane
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Waerzeggers against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                                 Communities
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                ( Case T-36/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( 97/C 142/40 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                       (Language of the case: French)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     1997 by Liliane Waerzeggers, residing in Holsbeek
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (').                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                       consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                            ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Rupert
Schlegelmilch against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                          ( Case T-35 /97 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 142/39 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case T- 16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
1997 by Rupert Schlegelmilch, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       Action brought on 26 February 1997 by Lucette Gerard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                                                 ( Case T-38/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                 ( 97/C 142/41 )
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                     An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 26 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             1997 by Lucette Gerard, residing in Brussels, represented


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its meetings on 17 September and 1 October 2002

text:
26.10.2002           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 261/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Decisions adopted by the Court at its meetings on                       Second Chamber
             17 September and 1 October 2002
                                                                        Mr Schintgen, President of the Chamber,
                       (2002/C 261/01)
                                                                        Mr Skouris and Ms Colneric, Judges.
                                                                        Third Chamber
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting on 17 September 2002             Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        Mr Gulmann, Ms Macken and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.
Appointment of Presidents of the Chambers
                                                                        Fourth Chamber
In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                        Mr Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
7 October 2002:
                                                                        Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola and Mr von Bahr, Judges.
—     Judge Wathelet as President of the First and Fifth
      Chambers,                                                         Fifth Chamber
—     Judge Puissochet as President of the Third and Sixth              Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
      Chambers,
                                                                        Mr Timmermans, Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr Jann, Mr von
—     Judge Schintgen as President of the Second Chamber,               Bahr and Mr Rosas, Judges.
—     Judge Timmermans as President of the Fourth Chamber.              Sixth Chamber
                                                                        Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
Composition of the Chambers                                             Mr Schintgen, Mr Gulmann, Mr Skouris, Ms Macken, Ms Col-
                                                                        neric and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.
1.     The composition of the Chambers for the same period
has been determined as follows:
                                                                        2.     For each case assigned to them, the Third and Fourth
First Chamber                                                           Chambers (to each of which four judges are attached) shall be
                                                                        composed of the President of the Chamber, the Judge-
Mr Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                                  Rapporteur and a third judge designated in accordance with a
                                                                        list of the judges in order of seniority. At each general meeting
Mr Jann and Mr Rosas, Judges.                                           the starting-point on that list is to be moved down one name.
 ---pagebreak--- C 261/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.10.2002
3.     For each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the            Sixth Chamber
Fifth and Sixth Chambers, to each of which seven judges are
attached, the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on         (President: Judge Puissochet)
the basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all       Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken, Judge da Cunha Rodrigues,
the judges of the Chamber, except the President, in the                 Judge Schintgen, Judge Skouris and Judge Colneric.
following order:
(a)   the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are          Appointment of the First Advocate General
      attached, in order of seniority;
                                                                        At its meeting held on 1 October 2002, in accordance with
(b)   the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.         Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice
                                                                        appointed Advocate General J. Mischo as First Advocate
                                                                        General for a period of one year starting on 7 October 2002.
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
—     the President,
—     the Judge-Rapporteur,                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in
—     three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting-       the case of Engin Ayaz against Land Baden-Württemberg
      point on that list shall be moved down one name at each
      general meeting.                                                                          (Case C-275/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/02)
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order
from the list. However, should the President of the large
Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be replaced if
possible by the President of the small Chamber.                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 11 July 2002,
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and            received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2002, for a
determine two or more cases together (whether or not they               preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Ayaz against Land
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be             Baden-Württemberg on the following question:
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.                                                                Is a stepson aged under 21 years of a Turkish worker who is
                                                                        duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member
                                                                        State a member of the family within the meaning of the first
4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2003, the lists               paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
referred to above are as follows:                                       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                        Association?
Third Chamber
(President: Judge Puissochet)
Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken and Judge de Cunha Rodrigues.
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of
Fourth Chamber                                                                   the European Communities against Ireland
(President: Judge Timmermans)                                                                   (Case C-282/02)
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola and Judge von Bahr.                                              (2002/C 261/03)
Fifth Chamber
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(President: Judge Wathelet)                                             Justice of the European Communities on 31 July 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola, Judge von Bahr, Judge                   Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Timmermans, Judge Jann and Judge Rosas.                                 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-408/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v EUIPO (sound mark) (EU trade mark — Application for a sound mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v EUIPO (sound mark)
   (Case T-408/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for a sound mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 392/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: E. Gaspar and M.-E. De Moro-Giafferri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 2945/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of a sound mark as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Case T-265/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/53

         Action brought on 16 June 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-265/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/85
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Mrs Nuria Díaz Abad, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 April 2010 declaring the suspension of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 11 December 2009 on the grounds stated in Section I of the legal reasoning set out in the originating application;

               —

               Uphold the claim that the European Commission should pay interest on account of the delay in the actual payment of the interim sums applied for and improperly suspended;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the Commission’s decision to interrupt the payment deadline in respect of the interim payment application submitted by Spain on 11 December 2009. That interim payment application, for a total amount of EUR 27 754 408,38,relates to the Operational Programmes for Community Assistance of the European Social Fund in the framework of the Objectives of Convergence for the Autonomous Community of Galicia (CCI 2007ES051PO004).
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those already raised in Case T-263/10 Spain v Commission.


title: Case T-217/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Staelen v Ombudsman (Non-contractual liability — Treatment by the Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for a general competition — Investigatory powers — Due diligence — Loss of opportunity — Non-pecuniary damage)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Staelen v Ombudsman
   (Case T-217/11) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Treatment by the Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for a general competition - Investigatory powers - Due diligence - Loss of opportunity - Non-pecuniary damage))
   (2015/C 198/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented initially by L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and A. Blot, subsequently by F. Wies and A. Hertzog and lastly by V. Olona, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: G. Grill, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking to obtain compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the approach taken by the European Ombudsman in the treatment of her complaint concerning the improper management of the list of suitable candidates for General Competition EUR/A/151/98, on which she appeared as a successful candidate.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Ombudsman to pay compensation of EUR 7  000 to Ms Claire Staelen;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Ombudsman to bear half of his own costs and to pay half of those of Ms Staelen;

               4.

               Orders Ms Staelen to bear half of her own costs and to pay half of those of the Ombudsman.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case C-183/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA
   (Case C-183/13)
   2013/C 189/07
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fazenda Pública

      Defendant: Banco Mais SA

      Question referred:

   In a financial leasing contract under which the customer pays rent, the latter comprising financial payback, interest and other charges, does or does not the rent paid fall to be taken into account, in its entirety, in the denominator of the deductible proportion or, conversely, must only interest be taken into account, since it constitutes the remuneration, the profit, accruing to the bank from the leasing contract?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 February 2000 in Case T-111/97: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)

text:
29.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 122/33
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                O. Montaldo, E. Joly and S. Laitinen) — application for annul-
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission                    ment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the list of                  Designs) of 15 March 1999 (Case R 74/1998-3) relating to
officials promoted to grade A 5 and of the list of officials               Community trade mark application No 230680 concerning a
considered to be the most deserving of promotion to that                   representation of soap — the Court of First Instance (Second
grade in the context of the 1998 promotions procedure, in                  Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and
that those lists do not include the name of the applicant, and             A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
for annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 February 2000, in
complaint, together with damages — the Court of First                      which it:
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,              1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 February 2000, in                  for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
which it:                                                                       Designs) of 15 March 1999 (Case R 74/1998-3);
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision, confirmed by the implicit             2. Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
     decision rejecting the complaint, not to include the applicant’s           applicant.
     name in the list of officials promoted to grade A 5 in the
     context of the 1998 promotions procedure, as published in the
     Administrative Notices of 6 April 1998;                               (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-111/97: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge
                                                                              Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objec-
                                                                           tion of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)
                        of 16 February 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 122/48)
in Case T-122/99: The Procter & Gamble Company v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                       Marks and Designs) (1)                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Community trade mark — Soap bar shape — Formal                            In Case T-111/97: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé,
irregularity in an application for registration — Absolute                 officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
grounds for refusal to register — Review by the Board of                   represented by Carlos Amo Quiñones, of the Madrid Bar, with
Appeal of it own motion — Observance of the rights of the                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
defence — Sign consisting exclusively of a shape which                     Emilio de la Guardia, 46 Rue Tony Neumann, v Commission
results from the nature of the goods themselves — Earlier                  of the European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) —
       registration of the mark in some Member States)                     application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of
                                                                           27 December 1996 rejecting the applicants’ complaints dated
                          (2000/C 122/47)                                  13 and 17 September 1996 by which they sought a review of
                                                                           their initial classification with a view to obtaining classification
                                                                           in grade A 6 with effect from the date of their recruitment,
                                                                           and of the Commission’s decisions of 1 March 1990 and
                     (Language of the case: French)                        2 June 1992 inasmuch as those decisions fix the applicants’
                                                                           classification in grade A 7 — the Court of First Instance
In Case T-122/99: The Procter & Gamble Company, a company                  (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
established in Cincinnatti, Ohio, United States of America,                M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
represented by T. van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address          an order on 9 February 2000, the operative part of which is as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of K. Manhaeve,                  follows:
56-58 Rue Charles Martel, against Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs (Agents:                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                                                                        in Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA) and
                                                                                Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Application signed by a lawyer
                                                                        not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State
                                                                        or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area
                                                                                Agreement — Inadmissibility)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 122/50)
                      of 9 February 2000
in Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v                                       (Language of the case: English)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        In Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA), established
(Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objec-             in Brussels, Hypermarché Auchan S.A., established in Croix
tion of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)            (France), Karstadt Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Ger-
                                                                        many), Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, established in Cologne (Ger-
                                                                        many), Société Anonyme CIVAD, trading as La Blanche Porte,
                        (2000/C 122/49)                                 established in Tourcoing (France), OttoVersand GmbH & Co.,
                                                                        established in Hamburg (Germany), Quelle-Schickedanz AG
                                                                        & Co., established in Fürth (Germany), Textilimportörerna,
                                                                        established in Stockholm (Sweden) (Agent: U. Schliessner,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
                                                                        Rue Mathias Hardt) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
In Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, an official        S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch) supported by
of the Commission of the European Communities, represented              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
by Vı́ctor Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, of the Malaga Bar (Spain),       schitz and N. Khan) — application for the annulment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997
Consuelo Pérez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de Brabant, v                   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                   cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
Currall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                (OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second
decision of 30 July 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for a        Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi, A. Po-
review of his initial classification and of the Commission’s            tocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
decision of 3 February 1997 rejecting the applicant’s com-              has given an order on 24 February 2000, in which it:
plaint against that decision — the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
an order on 9 February 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                        2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
                                                                            severally, to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                        3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                              (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.


title: Case C-498/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2016 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2016 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited
      (Case C-498/16)
      (2016/C 441/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Maximilian Schrems

         Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision loses that status, if, after the comparatively long use of a private Facebook account, he publishes books in connection with the enforcement of his claims, on occasion also delivers lectures for remuneration, operates websites, collects donations for the enforcement of his claims and has assigned to him the claims of numerous consumers on the assurance that he will remit to them any proceeds awarded, after the deduction of legal costs?

                  2.

                  Is Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer in a Member State can also invoke at the same time as his own claims arising from a consumer supply at the claimant’s place of jurisdiction the claims of others consumers on the same subject who are domiciled

                              a.

                              in the same Member State,

                              b.

                              in another Member State: or

                              c.

                              in a non-Member State,

                        if the claims assigned to him arise from consumer supplies involving the same defendant in the same legal context and if the assignment is not part of a professional or trade activity of the applicant, but rather serves to ensure the joint enforcement of claims?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-315/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Rudolf Maierhofer v Finanzamt Augsburg-Land (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Prefabricated building which can be dismantled and reassembled)

text:
C 44/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
                          of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-315/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Bundesfinanzhof): Rudolf Maierhofer v Finanzamt
in Case C-292/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             Augsburg-Land ( 1)
the Bundesgerichtshof): Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff
                         SA v Gofkid Ltd ( 1)                                (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immov-
                                                                             able property — Prefabricated building which can be dis-
                                                                                mantled and reassembled)
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) — Well-
known trade marks — Protection against use of a sign in
       respect of identical or similar products or services)                                             (2003/C 44/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 44/10)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-315/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                    in the European Court Reports)                           EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court between Rudolf
                                                                             Maierhofer and Finanzamt Augsburg-Land, on the interpret-
                                                                             ation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
                                                                             EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                             Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
In Case C-292/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                      L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA and Gofkid Ltd, on the                   D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges;
interpretation of Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council                 F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                      trator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                    which it has ruled:
1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-
porteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;                     1.    The letting of a building constructed from prefabricated
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                       components fixed to or in the ground in such a way that they
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January                       cannot be easily dismantled or easily moved constitutes a letting
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                       of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of
                                                                                Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                      basis of assessment, even if the building is to be removed at the
relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as entitling the Member              end of the lease and re-used on another site;
States to provide specific protection for well-known registered trade
marks in cases where a later mark or sign, which is identical with or        2.    Whether the lessor makes available to the lessee both the
similar to the registered mark, is intended to be used or is used for              building and the land on which it is erected or merely the
goods or services identical with or similar to those covered by the                building which he has erected on the lessee’s land is irrelevant
registered mark.                                                                   in determining whether a letting constitutes a letting of
                                                                                immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the
                                                                                Sixth Directive 77/388.
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case T-300/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Moser Baer India v Council (Anti-subsidy investigations — Recordable compact discs originating in India — Calculation of the amount of the subsidy — Determination of injury — Causal link — Rights of the defence)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Moser Baer India v Council
   (Case T-300/03) (1)

   (Anti-subsidy investigations - Recordable compact discs originating in India - Calculation of the amount of the subsidy - Determination of injury - Causal link - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 281/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Moser Baer India Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: A.P. Bentley QC, K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, R. MacLean and J. Branton, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, assisted by G.M. Berrisch, lawyer)
   Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ricz, Agents) and Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA), formerly Committee of European CD-R Manufacturers (CECMA) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle and V. Schiller, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact discs originating in India (OJ 2003 L 138, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant;

               3.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003


title: Case T-241/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Versalis v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/28

         Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Versalis v Commission
   (Case T-241/12)
   2012/C 227/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant submits that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measure by which the Commission held that the necessary conditions were present for reopening the procedure for imposing a penalty on Versalis SpA and Eni SpA, and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the European Commission of 23 April 2012 (D/2012/042050, entitled: COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Re-adoption) by which Versalis SpA was informed of the Commission’s decision to proceed with the adoption of a new statement of objections and a new infringement decision which will impose a fine on that company, in connection with Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber. That letter follows on from the judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, by which the General Court annulled the part of the infringement decision concerning the charge against the applicant — and, jointly and severally with that company, against Eni — relating to the aggravating circumstance of repeat infringements, leading to a recalculation of the fine imposed.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
   By its first and only plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission lacked competence to reopen the procedure for imposing a penalty on it with a view to the adoption of the new infringement decision. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission’s power to impose penalties on Versalis SpA in connection with the subject-matter of Procedure COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber came to an end following the adoption of the decision of 29 November 2006 (Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final), as annulled and altered by the General Court of the European Union in its judgment of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07, at present under appeal before the Court of Justice.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartels — Specialty graphite market — Price fixing — Liability — Calculation of fines — Cumulation of penalties — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Aggravating circumstances — Ability to pay — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Methods of payment)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Specialty graphite market - Price fixing - Liability - Calculation of fines - Cumulation of penalties - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Applicability - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances - Ability to pay - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Methods of payment)
   (2005/C 205/31)
   Languages of the case: German and English
   In Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03, Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Intech EDM BV, established in Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers, Intec EDM AG, established in Losone (Switzerland) M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers, SGL Carbon AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and P. Niggemann, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: W. Mölls, P. Hellström, F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Rating, acting as Agents, assisted, in Cases T-74/03 and T-87/03, by H. J. Freund, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), actions for annulment in full or in part of Commission Decision C(2002) 5083 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Speciality Graphite), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               In Case T-71/03 Tokai Carbon v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the application;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               2.

               In Case T-74/03 Intech EDM BV v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the application;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               3.

               In Case T-87/03 Intech EDM AG v Commission:

                           —

                           sets the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Decision COMP/E-2/37.667 at EUR 420 000;

                           —

                           amends Article 3(h) of Decision COMP/E-2/37.667 so that the joint and several liability of Intech EDM AG is limited to EUR 420 000;

                           —

                           dismisses the remainder of the application;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicant.

               4.

               In Case T-91/03 SGL Carbon v Commission:

                           —

                           sets the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Decision COMP/E-2/37.667 at EUR 9 641 970 in respect of the infringement committed in the isostatic graphite sector;

                           —

                           dismisses the remainder of the application;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003


title: Case T-623/14: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Loewe Technologies v OHIM — DNS International (SoundVision)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/61

         Order of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Loewe Technologies v OHIM — DNS International (SoundVision)
   (Case T-623/14) (1)

   (2016/C 098/79)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-374/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) (Chancery Division), by order of that court dated 25 August 2004, in the case of Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation against Commissioners of Inland Revenue

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) (Chancery Division), by order of that court dated 25 August 2004, in the case of Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation against Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-374/04)
   (2004/C 273/30)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) (Chancery Division), dated 25 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 August 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it contrary to Article 43 EC or 56 EC (having regard to Articles 57 EC and 58 EC) (or their predecessor provisions):

                           (a)

                           For Member State A (such as the United Kingdom)

                                       (i)

                                       to enact and keep in force legislation which confers an entitlement to a full tax credit in respect of dividends paid by companies resident in Member State A (‘relevant dividends’) to individual shareholders resident in Member State A;

                                       (ii)

                                       to give effect to a provision in double taxation conventions concluded with certain other Member States and third countries which confers an entitlement to a full tax credit (less tax as provided for in those conventions) in respect of relevant dividends to individual shareholders resident in those other Member States and third countries;

                                 but not to confer an entitlement to any tax credit (whether full or partial) in respect of relevant dividends when paid by a subsidiary resident in Member State A (such as the United Kingdom) to a parent company resident in Member State B (such as Germany) either under domestic provisions or under the terms of the double taxation convention between those States;

                           (b)

                           For Member State A (such as the United Kingdom) to give effect to a provision in the applicable double taxation convention conferring an entitlement to a partial tax credit in respect of relevant dividends on a parent company resident in Member State C (such as the Netherlands), but not to confer such an entitlement on a parent company resident in Member State B (such as Germany), where there is no provision for a partial tax credit in the double taxation convention between Member State A and Member State B;

                           (c)

                           For Member State A (such as the United Kingdom) not to confer an entitlement to a partial tax credit in respect of relevant dividends on a company resident in Member State C (such as the Netherlands) which is controlled by a company resident in Member State B (such as Germany) when Member State A gives effect to provisions in double taxation conventions which confer such an entitlement:

                                       (1)

                                       on companies resident in Member State C which are controlled by residents of Member State C;

                                       (2)

                                       on companies resident in Member State C which are controlled by residents of Member State D (such as Italy) where there is a provision conferring entitlement to a partial tax credit in respect of relevant dividends in the double taxation convention between Member State A and Member State D;

                                       (3)

                                       on companies resident in Member State D irrespective of who controls those companies?

                           (d)

                           Does it make any difference to the answer to Question l(c) that the company resident in Member State C is controlled not by a company resident in Member State B, but by a company resident in a third country?

               2.

               If the answer to all or any part of Question l (a) to (c) is in the affirmative, what principles does Community law lay down with regard to the Community rights and remedies available in the circumstances set out in those questions? In particular:

                           (a)

                           Is Member State A obliged to pay:

                                       i.

                                       The full tax credit or an amount equivalent thereto; or

                                       ii.

                                       The partial tax credit or an amount equivalent thereto; or

                                       iii.

                                       The full or partial tax credit, or an amount equivalent thereto:

                                                   1.

                                                   net of any extra income tax payable or which would have been payable if the dividend paid to the relevant claimant had attracted a tax credit;

                                                   2.

                                                   net of such tax calculated on some other basis?

                           (b)

                           To whom should such payment be made:

                                       i.

                                       The relevant parent company in Member State B or Member State C; or

                                       ii.

                                       The relevant subsidiary in Member State A?

                           (c)

                           Is the right to such payment:

                                       i.

                                       A right to reimbursement of sums unduly levied such that repayment is a consequence of, and an adjunct to, the right conferred by Articles 43 and/or 56; and/or

                                       ii.

                                       A right to compensation or damages such that the conditions for recovery laid down in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame must be satisfied; and/or

                                       iii.

                                       A right to recover a benefit unduly denied and, if so:

                                                   1.

                                                   is such a right a consequence of, and an adjunct to, the right conferred by Articles 43 and/or 56; or

                                                   2.

                                                   must the conditions for recovery laid down in Joined Cases C- 46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame be satisfied; or

                                                   3.

                                                   must some other conditions be met?

                           (d)

                           Does it make any difference for the purposes of Question 2(c) above whether as a matter of the domestic law of State A the claims are brought as restitutionary claims or are brought or have to be brought as claims for damages?

                           (e)

                           In order to recover, is it necessary for the company making the claim to establish that it, or its parent, would have claimed a tax credit (full or partial as the case may be) if it had known that under Community law it was entitled to do so?

                           (f)

                           Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 2(a) that in accordance with the ruling of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Hoechst and Metallgesellschaft the relevant subsidiary in Member State A may have been reimbursed or may be entitled in principle to reimbursement of, or in respect of, advance corporation tax in relation to the dividend paid to the relevant parent company in Member State B or Member State C?

                           (g)

                           What guidance, if any, does the Court of Justice think it appropriate to provide in the present cases as to which circumstances the national court ought to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether there is a sufficiently serious breach within the meaning of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame, in particular as to whether, given the state of the case law on the interpretation of the relevant Community law provisions, the breach was excusable?


title: Case T-512/15: Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/47

         Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)
   (Case T-512/15)
   (2015/C 354/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SUN CALI’ — Community trade mark No 5 482 369

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in case T-1281/2014-5.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2002 in Case T-88/98: Kundan Industries Ltd and Tata International Ltd v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Stainless steel fasteners — Calculation of export price — Unreliability of the price — Calculation of normal value — Rights of the defence)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 19/27
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 November 2002
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
in Case T-88/98: Kundan Industries Ltd and Tata Inter-
       national Ltd v Council of the European Union ( 1)                    in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/
                                                                            99, Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL v Commission of the
(Dumping — Stainless steel fasteners — Calculation of                                          European Communities ( 1)
export price — Unreliability of the price — Calculation of
              normal value — Rights of the defence)
                                                                            (Agriculture — EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial assist-
                                                                            ance — Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88
                           (2003/C 19/49)                                   — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
                                                                                expectations — Principle of proportionality)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/50)
In Case T-88/98, Kundan Industries Limited, Tata International
Limited, established in Mumbai (India), represented by                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
J.-F. Bellis and P. De Baere, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreus-
chitz and N. Khan): Application for the annulment of Article 1              In Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99:
of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98 of 16 February 1998                    Vela Srl, established in Milan (Italy), Tecnagrind SL, established
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                       in Barcelona (Spain), represented by G. M. Scarpellini, lawyer,
stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the              with an address for service in Luxembourg, Commission
People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea,                   of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and
Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 1998 L 50, p. 1) the Court                M. Moretto) — Application, in Case T-141/99, for the
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                   annulment of Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of 9 March
composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-           1999 withdrawing the assistance granted to Vela Srl by
gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given              Commission Decision C (92) 1494 of 30 June 1992, concern-
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it:                                ing grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988,
1.     Annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98 of             laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
       16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty             No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988
       on imports of stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof            L 374, p. 25), in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.001
       originating in the People’s Republic of China, India, the            entitled Action in the form of a demonstrative project for the
       Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand insofar as          introduction and promotion of cylindrical luffa in disadvan-
       it imposes an anti-dumping duty on exports to the European           taged European areas; in Case T-142/99, for the annulment of
       Community of products manufactured by Kundan Industries              Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of 4 March 1999
       Limited and exported by Tata International Limited which             withdrawing the assistance granted to Sonda Srl by Com-
       exceeds that which would apply but for an adjustment to the          mission Decision C (93) 3401 of 26 November 1993,
       export price made in respect of a commission.                        concerning grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contri-
                                                                            bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.                          connection with Project No 93.IT.06.057 entitled Action in
                                                                            the form of a pilot demonstrative project for the reduction of
                                                                            production costs and fertiliser costs in sunflower cultivation;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 30% of the       in Case T-150/99, for the annulment of Commission Decision
       costs of the applicants and orders the Commission to bear its        C (1999) 532 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing the assistance
       own costs.                                                           granted to Tecnagrind SL by Commission Decision C (93)
                                                                            3395 of 26 November 1993, concerning grant of the EAGGF,
                                                                            Guidance Section, contribution under Council Regulation
( 1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                            (EEC) No 4256/88, in connection with Project
                                                                            No 93.ES.06.031 entitled Demonstrative project for the mul-
                                                                            tiple optimisation of Vetiver (Vetiveria Zizanioides) in the


title: Case F-74/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Caldarone v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career Development Report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Obligation to state reasons for report — Annulment of the report — Claim for damages)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Caldarone v Commission
   (Case F-74/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career Development Report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Obligation to state reasons for report - Annulment of the report - Claim for damages)
   (2006/C 331/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maurizio Caldarone (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report for the 2003 appraisal procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopting Mr Caldarone's Career Development Report for the period from 1 January to 21 August 2003;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-293/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Communities by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-57/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2013 in Case T-524/12: Recaro Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/6

         Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2013 in Case T-524/12: Recaro Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-57/14 P)
   (2015/C 127/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 14 January 2015 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Recaro Holding GmbH to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-104/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/42

         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA against European Parliament
   (Case T-104/05)
   (2005/C 106/83)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by CEGELEC SA, whose registered office is in Brussels, represented by André Delvaux and Véronique Bertrand, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of 15 December 2004, by which the European Parliament rejected the tender submitted by CEGELEC SA and awarded to GROUP 4 Technology SA the three components making up the contract for the supply and commissioning of video surveillance systems for the three main workplaces of the European Parliament, which was the subject of a contract notice published in
                     Official Journal of the European Union S 61 of 26 March 2004, and for which the reasons were notified to CEGELEC SA by letter of 16 December 2004;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Please in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of the Parliament's decision to reject the applicant's tender in the call-for-tenders procedure concerning the provision of video surveillance systems at the European Parliament's three main workplaces and to award the contract to another tenderer.
   In support of its application, the applicant describes a number of alleged infringements of the tendering conditions and of Regulations Nos 1605/2002 (1) and 2432/2002 (2) and of Directives 92/50 (3), 93/36 (4) and 2004/18 (5), which consist more particularly of:

               —

               inadequate statement of the reasons for the contested decision notified to the applicant;

               —

               failure to apply the rules for awards of contract and the weighting system provided for in the tendering specifications;

               —

               the fact that, in the light of its size, the tender accepted was not in conformity with the obligation to submit a tender in writing in one of the official languages of the Union;

               —

               the fact that the Parliament, in breach of the principle of equal treatment for tenderers, awarded the contract on the basis of cameras which had not been demonstrated at the ‘photos-tests’ session;

               —

               the alleged belatedness of the tender that was accepted.

      (1)  OJ L 248, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 357, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 209, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 199, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-131/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — Saupiquet v Commission (Customs duty — Repayment of import duties — Canned tuna originating in Thailand — Tariff quota — Opening date — Sunday — Exhaustion of quota — Article 239 of the Community Customs Code — Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Regulation (EC) No 975/2003)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — Saupiquet v Commission
   (Case T-131/10) (1)

   (Customs duty - Repayment of import duties - Canned tuna originating in Thailand - Tariff quota - Opening date - Sunday - Exhaustion of quota - Article 239 of the Community Customs Code - Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Regulation (EC) No 975/2003)
   2012/C 13/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Saupiquet (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and L. Bouyon, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009 finding that the repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand is not justified.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Saupiquet to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-55/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/31)

      Language of the case: Finnish

   By order of 16 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-55/05 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Appeal brought on 4 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997 by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-227/95 between AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-310/97 P)

text:
18 . 10 . 97                 I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                          2 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
of Ireland, by order of that court dated 29 May 1997, in                           and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company against                                 Treaty, read together, for the tax levied in a non
                                Coillte Teoranta                                   member State on the profits of a subsidiary in that
                                ( Case C-306/97)                                   State of a branch establishment in Germany of a
                                                                                company having its seat in another Member State not
                                  ( 97/C 318/19 )                                  to be credited against the German corporation tax on
                                                                                that German branch establishment under the same
                                                                                conditions as for a company having its seat in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             Germany ?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Ireland dated 29 May 1997, which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 September 1997, for a preliminary                         3 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
ruling in the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company '                             and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
against Coillte Teoranta on the following questions:                               Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in
                                                                                Germany of a company having its seat in another
                                                                                Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg in
( i ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
                                                                                respect of capital tax under the same conditions as for
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'                        a company having its seat in Germany ?
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 77/62/
       EEC H ?
( ii ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 93/36/
       EEC ( 2)?                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari, by order of that court of 19 August
(') Council        Directive      77/62/EEC   of   21  December    1976         1997, in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                                            ( Case C-308/97)
      contracts ( OJ L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 ).
( 2 ) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                                              97/C 318/21 )
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts ( OJ L 199,
      9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ).
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari ( Magistrate's Court, District of Bari )
                                                                              of 19 August 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                              Registry on 3 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                     in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
Koln by order of that court of 30 June 1997 in the case of                    concerning the extension of the prohibition of the planting
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt                         of new vines laid down in Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council
                               Aachen-Innenstadt                              Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87 ( ] ) to vines intended for the
                                                                              production of table grapes.
                                  Case C-307/97 )
                                  ( 97/C 318/20 )                             0 ) OJ L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
Koln (Finance Court, Cologne ) of 30 June 1997, which
was received at the Court Registry on 2 September 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Compagnie de                          Appeal brought on 4 September 1997 by the Commission
Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt Aachen                              of the European Communities against the judgment
Innenstadt on the following questions:                                        delivered on 10 July 1997 by the Second Chamber
                                                                              ( extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
1 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,                       the European Communities in Case T-227/95 between
       and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC                    AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and Others and the
       Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in                            Commission of the European Communities
       Germany of a company having its seat in another                                                ( Case C-3 10/97 P)
       Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg (a
       form of tax relief in respect of profits distributed                                               ( 97/C 318/22 )
       between parent company and subsidiary) in respect of
       dividends under a double taxation agreement with a
       non-member State under the same conditions as for a                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997
       company having its seat in Germany ?                                   by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/ 12            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18 . 10 . 97
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        cannot have been annulled by the Wood pulp
Case T-227/95 ('), between AssiDoman Kraft Products AB                        judgment, but that ( points 64 to 95 ) those fines have,
and Others and the Commission of the European                                 as a result of this judgment, no legal basis and thus
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of                       must be repaid .
the European Communities on 4 September 1997 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                       (') OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 28 .
by Wouter Wils, a member of its Legal Service, acting as               ( 2 ) Case 97/86 , [ 1988 ] ECR, p . 2181 .
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                ( 3 ) Joined Cases 42/59 and 49/59 , [ 1961 ] ECR, p. 53 .
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also a member of its
Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
The appellant claims that the Court should quash the
contested judgment of the Court of First Instance and, the
state of the proceedings so permitting, give final judgment
in the matter by dismissing the application for annulment              Action brought on 15 September 1997 by the Commission
as inadmissible, or in the alternative, as unfounded, and              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
ordering the applicants at first instance to pay the costs                                                   Spain
for the procedure at both levels of jurisdiction.                                                    Case C-3 18/97
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/23 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
The Commission submits that the judgment is based on an                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 erroneous interpretation of Article 176 of the Treaty,                 on 15 September 1997 by the Commission of the
which furthermore disregards Article 173 and 189 of                     European Communities, represented by Jose Luis Iglesias
 the Treaty. Finally, the contested judgment contains                   Buhigues, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 contradictory reasoning:                                               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                        its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 — The Court of First Instance 's interpretation of Article
     176 is not supported by the judgments of the Court of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
     Justice in the Asteris ( 2 ) and Snupat ( 3 ) cases, to which
     points 69 and 70 of the contested judgment refer.
     Neither of these judgments provides an answer to
     the question whether an undertaking on which the                   — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     Commission has imposed a fine for a competition                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
     law infringement and which has not brought an                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     application for annulment of the decision but has paid                    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
     the fine can later claim reimbursement of the fine, on                    unfair terms in consumer contracts ('), the Kingdom of
     the basis that the Court annulled the fines imposed on                    Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
     other undertakings which did appeal the Commission's                      Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty, and
     decision .
                                                                        — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 — In its final result, the contended judgment makes a
     mockery of the two-month time limit in Article 173 of
     the EC Treaty. It furthermore disregards Article 189 of             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     that Treaty in that it contradicts the individual nature
     of decisions . It follows from the general nature of a
     Regulation that its annulment by the Court affects the              The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     legal position not only of the parties before the Court             paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
      but of all those to whom the Regulation may apply.                 Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
      On     the   other   hand,     decisions     are   individual
                                                                         adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directives
      administrative acts, affecting the legal position of               addressed to them into their domestic law before the
      individual addressees . If an addressee challenges a               expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period
      decision addressed to him and obtains its annulment,
                                                                         expired on 31 December 1994 without the Kindom of
      this only affects the legal position of the successful             Spain having brought into force the necessary provisions .
      applicant.
                                                                          (') OJ L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
  — It is plainly contradictory to hold at the same time
      that ( points 58 and 60 ) the decisions imposing fines on
      the Swedish addressees continue to be valid and