title: Case C-111/03: Action brought on 12 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
10.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Finally, the Kingdom of Belgium wonders whether the regu-
                                                                          lation at issue should not be annulled for infringing the Treaty
                                                                          inasmuch as the regulation is based on the wrong legal basis.
                                                                          The Treaty provides for a specific legal basis for Community
                                                                          action in the field of employment. The enabling regulation
                                                                          enabled the Council to confer on the Commission the power
                                                                          to adopt actions in the field of employment; to that extent,
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98,                  that regulation should also be declared unlawful, since it runs
      hereinafter ‘the enabling regulation’. Commission Regu-             counter to the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which does
      lation (EC) No 2204/2002, hereinafter ‘the regulation at            not permit any such conferment of powers by way of a
      issue’, does not observe the enabling regulation in that it         Council regulation.
      does not attain any of the objectives relating to trans-
      parency and legal certainty pursued by the enabling
      regulation. First, the regulation at issue is not clear as
      regards the circumstances in which it applies, in view of           (1 ) OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1.
      the parallel existence of guidelines and frameworks which
      the Commission can apply at the same time to aid for
      employment. Secondly, the regulation at issue is not clear
      either as regards the rules it contains. Finally, the lack of
      clarity affects the very measures which should fall within
      the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and in respect
      of which the application of the regulation is necessary.
      Indeed, the regulation at issue gives the impression that it
      must also be applied to measures of general scope, that is
      to say, general measures adopted at regional level, when
      such measures should automatically have been excluded
      from the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 March 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Sweden
—     Breach of the principle of subsidiarity, by failing to take
      account of the constitutional organisation prevailing in
      Belgium and by therefore considering every action by a                                        (Case C-111/03)
      regional authority, which is exclusively competent in the
      field of employment, as specific and thus as falling within
      the scope of the regulation at issue.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/25)
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: by main-
      taining earlier aid schemes which had previously been
      authorised while introducing a scheme which is altogether
                                                                          An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
      stricter for new aid and allowing to exist side by side two
      schemes which are diametrically different depending on              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      the date on which the aid was implemented, the regu-
                                                                          represented by L. Ström and A. Borders, acting as Agents, with
      lation at issue also entails breach of the principle of non-
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      discrimination, which is a general legal principle which
      must be observed when implementing Community
      administrative policy in general and in matters of compe-
      tition and State aid in particular. By leaving intact
      previously authorised aid schemes, the regulation at issue          The Commission claims that the Court should:
      discriminates between undertakings which will benefit
      from aid granted on the basis of earlier schemes and
      those which will be eligible to receive only lower levels           1.    Declare that by retaining a system of prior notification
      of aid on the basis of the new scheme.                                    and health checks for importers of certain food products
                                                                                of animal origin from other Member States the Kingdom
                                                                                of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
                                                                                Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning
                                                                                veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view
—     Breach of the principle of proportionality, by making it                  to the completion of the internal market ( 1), and
      difficult or impossible for Member States to pursue a
      genuine employment policy because of such lack of
      transparency, clarity and coherence of the legislation.             2.    Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
                                                                         le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
                                                                         Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
                                                                         and Others on the following question:
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under             May the insured beneficiary of a contract of insurance
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
                                                                         concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the                   and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of                be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
                                                                         courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production           clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
                                                                         and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the           State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
products comply with the Community requirements or the                   that State?
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.
The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification
requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that                  Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are               the European Communities against the French Republic
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination.                                                                      (Case C-113/03)
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                                        (2003/C 112/27)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
                              Others
                                                                         —    Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
                                                                              geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
                         (Case C-112/03)                                      the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
                                                                              EC ( 1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                         (2003/C 112/26)                                      24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
                                                                              portability and carrier pre-selection ( 2), the French Repub-
                                                                              lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel,                    —    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-236/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark NEO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action — Articles 59 and 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)
   (Case T-236/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NEO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action - Articles 59 and 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 233/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Airbus SAS (France) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1387/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NEO as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1387/2011-1) as regards the services in Class 39 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


25.11.2000            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 335/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-265/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-268/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/72)                                                      (2000/C 335/75)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-265/98 (reference for a preliminary           the register of Case C-268/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Compañ Calbuig.               Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Marı́a Casas
                                                                     Minguélez.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-266/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/73)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-269/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 335/76)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-266/98 (reference for a preliminary           By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v Gianfranco Caminati.                the register of Case C-269/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Planeta Crédito SA v Antonio Villar Castelao.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-267/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/74)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-270/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                    (2000/C 335/77)
the register of Case C-267/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rafael Bogas         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Cardeñosa.                                                          the register of Case C-270/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Salvat Artel SA v Pilar López Aznar.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99: Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Application for annulment — Relevant market — Collective dominant position — Proof)

text:
C 191/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 June 2002                                                            of 30 May 2002
in Case T-342/99: Airtours plc v Commission of the
                                                                          in Case T-197/00: Hubert Onidi v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the com-                (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post
mon market — Application for annulment — Relevant                         with reduction of pension entitlement — Actions falling
       market — Collective dominant position — Proof)                     within the field of corruption — Right to a fair hearing —
                                                                                Principle of proportionality)
                         (2002/C 191/40)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/41)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-342/99, Airtours plc, represented by J. Swift QC and
R. Anderson, Barristers, M. Nicholson, J. Holland and A. Gomes
da Silva, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg,          In Case T-197/00: Hubert Onidi, a former official of the
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal):                Commission of the European Communities, residing at Roque-
Application for annulment of Commission Decision                          fort-les-Pins (France), represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,
C(1999)3022 final of 22 September 1999 declaring a concen-                avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
tration to be incompatible with the common market and the                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice),                   and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the
published under number 2000/276/EC (OJ 2000 L 93, p. 1),                  Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999 imposing on the
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-               applicant the penalty of removal from post with a one-third
sition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,         reduction in his retirement pension entitlement, and of the
J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio               Commission’s letter of 27 July 1999 rejecting the applicant’s
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-            request for the re-opening of the disciplinary procedure — the
ment on 6 June 2002, in which it:                                         Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeg-
                                                                          er, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          30 May 2002, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(1999) 3022 final of 22 Sep-
      tember 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with
      the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/
      M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice);                                    1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred       2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case F-62/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Sevenier v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Permanent termination of service — Resignation — Application to withdraw)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2009 — Sevenier v Commission
   (Case F-62/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Permanent termination of service - Resignation - Application to withdraw)
   2009/C 282/124
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Sevenier (Paris, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request to withdraw his tender of resignation and for his case to be submitted to the medical committee and, consequently, an application for reinstatement of the applicant at the European Commission with reconstitution of his career from the date of his resignation.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               (1)

               dismisses the action as being manifestly inadmissible;

               (2)

               orders Mr Sevenier to pay the costs;

               (3)

               declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene;

               (4)

               orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 27.09.2008 p. 25


title: Case C-413/05: Order of the President of the Court of  16 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-413/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/39)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.01.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November 1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case C-16/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           1 EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 64/ 11
     workers within the Community require that, where                           himself during the first stage of its life and refrains from
     doctors have worked as such in the public service of                       pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
     another Member State of the EC, the time spent in such
     employment should likewise be taken into account for                       if the cash benefit, which is a fixed amount, is paid only
     the purposes of promotion on grounds of seniority as                       if the income does not exceed certain limits graduated
     provided for in the BAT or should the court instead take                   according to the number of members of the family,
     no such decision and leave this matter to the parties to                   and if, although the cash benefit, as a family-policy
     the collective agreement, having regard to their freedom                   social benefit, is intended as recompense for bringing up
     to agree terms ?                                                           the child and to compensate for the absence of income
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                                from a full-time occupation and the other burdens of
                                                                                caring for and bringing up the child, its primary purpose
                                                                                is to act as an incentive to foster an attachment to the
                                                                                child ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November                       cash benefit in relation to a migrant worker within the
1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                                meaning of Article 73 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
                      Nordrhein-Westfalen                                       a family benefit even if it is not the worker himself who is
                                                                                bringing up the child and is therefore entitled, but his
                         ( Case C-16/96 )                                       wife ?
                           ( 96/C 64/24 )
                                                                          3 . Do national rules which in a Member State provide, in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          favour of its nationals residing there, for an entitlement
European Communities by an order of the                                         to a cash benefit for one parent who her or himself
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) — 14th                             brings up her or his child during the first stage of its life
Chamber — of 29 November 1995 , which was received at                           and refrains from pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
the Court Registry on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary                       also apply, under EC law, such as Article 7 ( 2 ) of
ruling in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 2 ), to the spouse of a
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:                                 worker who works in that State for the purpose of
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 and who lives with his
1 . Is a cash benefit financed from tax revenue a family                        spouse in another Member State ( frontier worker )?
     benefit within the meaning of Article 1 ( u ) ( i ) of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), if a condition for                ( ] ) OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
     entitlement is that one parent brings up the child her or            ( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  annulment of — firstly, the decision of the Selection
                       of 16 January 1996                                 Committee for Artists' Competition No 93/S 21-3373/FR,
                                                                          taken on behalf of the Council and notified to the applicant
in Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte v. Council of the
                                                                          by letter of 14 January 1994 , not to admit her to the second
                       European Union (')                                 stage of that competition, — secondly, that Committee's
(Artists ' competition — Rules of the competition —                       decision to delegate to each national working party the
Lawfulness of the selection procedure — Powers of the                     initial selection of applications from artists established in its
                      Selection Committee)                                national territory, — thirdly, its decision to fix the number
                            ( 96/C 64/25 )                                of artists to be selected at three per Member State, and —
                                                                          fourthly, its decision to draw up without further
                                                                          examination the list of artists admitted to the second stage of
                                                                          the competition; and ( ii ) an order requiring the Council to
                 (Language of the case: French)                           pay a symbolic ecu as compensation for the damage which
                                                                          the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                          Selection Committee's decisions, in particular the decision
In Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte , self-employed artist,                rejecting her application — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
residing in Jambes ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel                   Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, R.
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue                   has given a judgment on 16 January 1996 , in which it:
Glesener v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves
Cretien and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for ( i )                     1 . dismisses the application;


title: Case C-538/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2007 — Assitur Srl v Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2007 — Assitur Srl v Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano
   (Case C-538/07)
   (2008/C 37/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Assitur Srl

      Defendant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano
   Question referred
   Does Article 29 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in laying down seven grounds for exclusion from participation in service contracts, give an exhaustive list of cases of exclusion and therefore preclude Article 10(1 bis) of Law No 109/94 (now replaced by Article 34, last paragraph, of Legislative Decree No 136/86) from imposing a prohibition on simultaneous participation in a tendering procedure of undertakings which are linked by a relationship of control?

      (1)  OJ L 1992 209, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2002 in Case T-77/02: Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation No 4064/89 — Decision ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)

text:
8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/25
— Schneider-Legrand) — the Court of First Instance (First                    (1) Annuls Commission Decision C (2002) 360 final of 30 Janu-
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood                       ary 2002 ordering the separation of undertakings (Case
and H. Legal, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the                         COMP/M.2283 — Schneider — Legrand);
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                          (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
                                                                                costs incurred by the applicant, including the costs of the
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C(2001)3014 final of 10 Octo-                    interlocutory proceedings in Case T-77/02 R;
       ber 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the
       common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/                       (3) Orders Legrand SA, the Comité Central d’Entreprise de la SA
       M.2283 — Schneider-Legrand);                                                Legrand and the Comité Européen du Groupe Legrand to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition,
       to pay those incurred by Schneider Electric SA;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
3.     Orders the Comité Central d’Entreprise de SA Legrand and the
       Comité Européeen du Groupe Legrand to bear their own costs;
4.     Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 December 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 in Case T-112/02: Gustaaf Van Dyck v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                        of 22 October 2002
                                                                             (Officials — Classification of grade upon recruitment —
in Case T-77/02: Schneider Electric SA v Commission of                          Application for reclassification — New fact — Meaning)
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/72)
(Competition — Regulation No 4064/89 — Decision
ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
a concentration incompatible with the common market —
           Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                           (2003/C 55/71)                                    In Case T-112/02, Gustaaf Van Dyck, an official of the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities, resident in
                                                                             Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by M.E. Storme and
                     (Language of the case: French)                          A. Gobien, avocats, against the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                             H.M.H. Speyart), seeking to set aside the Commission’s refusal
                                                                             to accede to the applicant’s request for reclassification, the
In Case T-77/02: Schneider Electric SA, established in Rueil-                Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
Malmaison (France), represented by A. Winckler and É. de La                  B. Vesterdorf, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,
Serre, lawyers, against Commission of the European Com-                      Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 13 December
munities (Agents: P. Oliver, P. Hellström and F. Lelièvre),                  2002 in which it:
supported by Legrand SA, established in Limoges (France),
represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, Comité central d’entreprise
de la SA Legrand, Comité européen du Groupe Legrand,                         (1) Dismissed the application as inadmissible.
established in Limoges, represented by H. Masse-Dessen,
lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision                    (2) Ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
C (2002) 360 final of 30 January 2002, ordering a separation
of undertakings (Case COMP/M.2282 — Schneider-Legrand)
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                   (1 ) OJ 2002 C 131, p. 26.
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 October 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-176/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 December 2011 — Carbunión v Council (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision on aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Lack of concordance with the main action — Non-severability — Inadmissibility — Balance of interests)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/52

      Order of the President of the General Court of 2 December 2011 — Carbunión v Council
      (Case T-176/11 R)
      (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision on aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Lack of concordance with the main action - Non-severability - Inadmissibility - Balance of interests)
      (2012/C 25/101)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Desai, Solicitor, S. Cisnal de Ugarte and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for partial suspension of operation of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24) and, in the alternative, application for full suspension of operation of that decision.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-102/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/61

         Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
   (Case T-102/15)
   (2015/C 138/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 9 4 17  668

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2036/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht): Hilmar Kellinghusen v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel and Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (Common agricultural policy - Administrative fees - Charging to beneficiaries)

text:
C 397/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a              Mafar Srl (C-22/97) Ð on the consequences arising under
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it:                            national law from the incompatibility of a domestic
                                                                     charge with Community law Ð the Court, composed of:
                                                                     G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P.
1. It is not contrary to Articles 17 and 18 of Council               Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents
     Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on                  of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     improving the efficiency of agricultural structures or to       C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H.
     Article 1 of Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April           Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
     1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     certain less-favoured areas to grant a compensatory             Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
     allowance for permanent natural handicaps to a                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1998,
     farmer whose home is not on the farm.                           in which it has ruled:
2. It is not contrary either to the principle of equal               The obligation on a national court to disapply national
     treatment or to that of legal certainty for a farmer            legislation introducing a charge contrary to Community
     claiming the compensatory allowance who does not                law must lead that court, in principle, to uphold claims
     live on his farm but more than 12 kilometres by road            for repayment of that charge. Such repayment must be
     from its operational centre to be required to work the          ensured in accordance with the provisions of its national
     farm himself, to derive at least 50 % of his income             law, on condition that those provisions are not less
     from farming or similar activities and, in addition, to         favourable than those governing similar domestic actions
     establish the existence of special grounds.                     and do not render virtually impossible or excessively
                                                                     difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community
                                                                     law. Any reclassification of the legal relationship
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997, and                                           established between the tax authorities of a Member State
    OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                     and certain companies in that State when a domestic
                                                                     charge subsequently found to be contrary to Community
                                                                     law was levied is therefore a matter for national law.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 22 October 1998
in Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma): Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE.'90 Srl and                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           Others (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Treatment of a
    national charge incompatible with Community law)                                      of 22 October 1998
                         (98/C 397/06)                               in Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches
                                                                     Verwaltungsgericht): Hilmar Kellinghusen v. Amt für
                                                                     Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel and Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (1)
                                                                     (Common agricultural policy Ð Administrative fees Ð
                                                                                Charging to beneficiaries)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                           (98/C 397/07)
In Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97: references to the                               (Language of the case: German)
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma (District Magistrate's
Court, Rome) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Ministero
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
delle Finanze and IN.CO.GE.'90 Srl (C-10/97), Idelgard
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Srl (C-11/97), Iris'90 Srl (C-12/97), Camed Srl (C-13/97),
Pomieza Progetti Appalti Srl (PPA) (C-14/97), Edilcam Srl
(C-15/97), A. Cecchini & C. Srl (C-16/97), EMO Srl
(C-17/97), Emoda Srl (C-18/97), Sappesi Srl (C-19/97),               In Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97: references to
Ing. Luigi Martini Srl (C-20/97), Giacomo Srl (C-21/97),             the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/5
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht (Germany)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                                (First Chamber)
that court between Hilmar Kellinghusen and Amt für
Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (joined party:                                         of 22 October 1998
Ministerium für ländliche Räume, Landwirtschaft,
Ernährung und Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein),           in Case C-143/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
and between Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen and Amt für Land- und           the Cour du Travail, LieÁge) Office National des Pensions
Wasserwirtschaft Husum (joined party: Ministerium für                             (ONP): v. Francesco Conti (1)
ländliche Räume, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und
Tourismus des Landes Schleswig-Holstein) Ð on the                 (Social security Ð Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46(b) of
interpretation and validity, in Case C-36/97, of                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Old age and death
Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of                (insurance) Ð National rules against overlapping)
30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers                                  (98/C 397/08)
of certain arable crops (OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12) and, in
Case C-37/97, of Article 30(a) of Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992
amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 and repealing
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules
                                                                           published in the European Court Reports)
applying to the special premium for beef producers and
Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of
premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ L 215,
30.7.1992, p. 49) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    In Case C-143/97: Reference to the Court under
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of          Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Cour du Travail,
the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm               LieÁge (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and R. Schintgen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;         pending before that court between Office National des
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,           Pensions (ONP) and Francesco Conti Ð application for a
gave a judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it ruled:            preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 12(2),
                                                                  46(3) and 46(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                  of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                  schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
1. Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/             and to members of their families moving within the
    92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for          Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416),
    producers of certain arable crops and Article 30(a) of        as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
    Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June          No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as
    1968 on the common organisation of the market in              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
    beef and veal, as inserted by Council Regulation              30 April 1992 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7) Ð the Court
    (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending                     (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
    Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 and repealing                      Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M.
    Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general                Wathelet, Judges; M. S. Alber, Advocate-General; L.
    rules applying to the special premium for beef                Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80                     judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it has ruled that:
    introducing a system of premiums for maintaining
    suckler cows, prohibit the authorities in the Member
    States from charging applicants administrative fees for       A national rule which provides that the supplement to a
    processing their applications for aid even if the             mineworker's retirement pension is to be reduced by the
    administrative fees fixed by those authorities                amount of a retirement pension which the person
    correspond to the rates which are otherwise usual in          concerned may claim under a scheme of another Member
    national law and those fees are so low that they are          State constitutes a provision for reduction of benefit
    not capable of deterring applicants from applying for         within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation
    aid.                                                          (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                  social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                  employed persons and to members of their families
2. Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed          moving within the Community, as amended by Council
    no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of         Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, and within
    Regulations (EEC) No 1765/92 and Regulation (EEC)             the meaning of Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46(b) of that
    No 2066/92.                                                   version of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended by
                                                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Pay-TV and digital interactive television services markets — Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market — Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination — Time-limits — Modification of commitments — Insufficiency of commitments)

text:
C 304/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (2003/C 304/37)
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           in Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision on the          rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik
composition of the chambers taken at the plenary meeting of            Deutschland (ARD) v Commission of the European Com-
2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 32):                                                               munities (1)
In accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the         (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Pay-TV
Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October 2003 to         and digital interactive television services markets — Serious
31 August 2004, Judge Dehousse is assigned to the First                doubts as to compatibility with the common market —
Chamber, Extended Composition, the Third Chamber and the               Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination
Third Chamber, Extended Composition.                                   — Time-limits — Modification of commitments — Insuf-
                                                                                ficiency of commitments)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for
                       interim measures
                        (2003/C 304/38)                                In Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtli-
                                                                       chen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
                                                                       (ARD), established in Cologne (Germany), represented by
                                                                       P. Mailänder and A. Bartosch, lawyers, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           European Communities (Agent: P. Wiedner), supported by
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision taken           KirchPayTV GmbH & Co. KGaA, established in Unterföring
at the plenary meeting of 2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 33)           (Germany), represented by K. Metzlaff, lawyer, with an address
on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the         for service in Luxembourg, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for interim         (BSkyB), established in Isleworth (United Kingdom), represent-
measures:                                                              ed by S. Wisking and D. Livingston, solicitors, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, application for annulment of
                                                                       Commission Decision SG (2000) D/102552 of 21 March
                                                                       2000 (Case COMP/JV.37), which declared the notified concen-
In accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of            tration by which BSkyB acquired joint control of KirchPayTV
the Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October             to be compatible with the common market and with the
2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge Tiili is designated to replace           Agreement on the European Economic Area, pursuant to
the President of the Court of First Instance in deciding an            Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of
application for interim measures in the event that both the            21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between
President and Judge García-Valdecasas are absent or prevented          undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1), the Court of First Instance
from dealing with it.                                                  (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
                                                                       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
                                                                       which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/23
1)    Dismisses the application.                                           3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                                which gave rise to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                                of 16 May 2002 Rounis v Commission (T-17/01).
2)    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      the Commission and the interveners, KirchPayTV and BSkyB.
                                                                           4.    In the present proceedings, orders the Commission to bear its
                                                                                own costs and to pay one-third of the costs incurred by the
(1) OJ 2000 C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                  applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 30 September 2003
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-17/01: Georgios Rounis v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                     of 30 September 2003
(Officials — Articles 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the                 in Case T-26/01: Fiocchi munizioni SpA v Commission of
Staff Regulations — Transfer of a part of remuneration in                                   the European Communities (1)
the currency of a Member State other than the country in
which the institution has its seat — Conditions — Loss —
                    Assessment of damages)                                 (Articles 296 EC and 298 EC — State aid granted to an
                                                                           arms production undertaking — Complaint — Action for
                                                                                declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                         (2003/C 304/40)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/41)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-17/01, Georgios Rounis, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the                   In Case T-26/01, Fiocchi Munizioni SpA, established in Lecco
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-                  (Italy), represented by I. Van Bael, E. Raffaelli, F. Di Gianni
Duvieusart) — application for determination of the amount of               and R. Antonini, lawyers, v Commission of the European
the loss for which the Commission was ordered to compensate                Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci), supported by Kingdom of
the applicant following annulment by the Court of First                    Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declar-
Instance of the Commission’s decision of 24 February 2000                  ation that the Commission unlawfully refrained from taking a
limiting transfer of the applicant’s emoluments to the United              decision on the merits of the complaint by the applicant
Kingdom to 19 % of his net monthly earnings, the Court of                  concerning a State aid granted by the Kingdom of Spain to the
First Instance, M. Vilaras, Judge; and I. Natsinas, Administrator,         Santa Barbara company, the Court of First Instance (Third
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September                    Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
2003, in which it:                                                         President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J.D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges;
                                                                           J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it:
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant damages of
      GBP 17 394,64, with interest for late payment at the annual
      rate of 5,25 % annually until payment.                               1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action for damages.                   2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2002 in Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Former agents of the European Association for Cooperation — Refusal to appoint as established officials — Action for annulment and compensation)

text:
7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/21
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Verryck, residing in Brussels, Françoise Leroy, residing in
                                                                           Villers-la-Ville (Belgium), Petra Schlueter, residing in Overijse
                      of 25 September 2002                                 (Belgium), Lucia Talluto, residing in Brussels, Sandrine Tauber,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Jacqueline White, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           Anne-Christine Ranglaret-Clément, residing in Brussels, Francy
in Case T-316/00: Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH v Office                       Arnalsteen, residing in Genval (Belgium), Georges Anagnostar-
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks
                                                                           as, residing in Brussels, Jean-Pierre Dupriez, residing in Berloz
                     and Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Belgium), François Jurquet, residing in Brussels, Christian Eloy,
                                                                           residing in Waterloo (Belgium), Jean-Pierre Kanyinda, residing
(Community trade mark — Colours (green and grey) —                         in Zellik (Belgium), Bernard Lion, residing in Brussels, Renato
Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character —                      Stella, residing in Brussels, Gérard Van Neylen, residing in
          Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                     Brussels, represented initially by A. Evrard and A. Colson, then
                                                                           by A. Colson and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an
                          (2002/C 305/44)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: initially, E. Tserepa
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Lacombe and D. Martin; then, D. Martin and F. Clotuche-
                                                                           Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision to refuse to appoint the applicants as established
                                                                           officials or to offer them contracts as members of the
In Case T-316/00, Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH, established                   temporary staff for an indefinite term and for compensation
in Kufstein (Austria), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office          of the damage suffered as a result of that decision — the Court
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and                    President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; Registrar: D. Chris-
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the First                tensen, Administrator, gave a judgment on 26 September
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                     2002, in which it:
Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2000
(Case R 558/1999-1) refusing registration of a juxtaposition               1.     Dismissed the action
of the colours green and grey as a Community trade mark, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                     2.     Ordered each of the parties to pay his or her own costs.
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           (1 ) OJ No C 372 of 23 December 2000.
25 September 2002, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                                of 11 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Obligations under the Staff Regulations —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Declaration of spouse’s occupation — Personal interest
                                                                           likely to compromise independence — Obligation relating to
                      of 26 September 2002                                 personal dignity — Obligation to act in the interest of the
                                                                           Communities — Duty of loyalty — Disciplinary proceedings
in Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans and Others v                           — Non-contractual liability — Assessment of non-material
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                                      damage)
(Officials — Former agents of the European Association for                                           (2002/C 305/46)
Cooperation — Refusal to appoint as established officials —
           Action for annulment and compensation)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          (2002/C 305/45)
                                                                           In Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme, an official of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
In Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans, residing in Brussels,                 D. Waelbroeck) — application for first, annulment of the
Annick Duez, residing in Baudour (Belgium), Ariane Dutrieux-               decision of 19 June 2000 downgrading the applicant from


title: Case C-262/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
   (Case C-262/12)
   2012/C 243/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale, Alain Bruguier, Jean-Pierre Le Gorgeu, Marie-Christine Piot, Eric Errec, Didier Wirth, Daniel Steinbach, Sabine Servan-Schreiber, Philippe Rusch, Pierre Recher, Jean-Louis Moret, Didier Jocteur Monrozier

      Defendants: Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

      Question referred

   In the light of the change in the mechanism for financing in full the additional costs imposed on Électricité de France and the non-nationalised distributors referred to in Article 23 of Law No 46-628 of 8 April 1946 on the nationalisation of electricity and gas by the obligation to purchase at higher than market price the electricity generated by wind-power installations, as a result of Law No 2003-8 of 3 January 2003, must that mechanism now be regarded as an intervention by the State or through State resources within the meaning, and for the application, of Article 87 EC?


title: Case C-217/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 8 May 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Bornand, Pierre-Louis

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 8 May 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Bornand, Pierre-Louis
   (Case C-217/12)
   2012/C 235/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Respondent: Bornand, Pierre-Louis

      Question referred

   Does a benefit such as the parental leave allowance provided for by Articles 306 to 308 of the [Luxembourg] Code de la Sécurité Sociale constitute a family benefit within the meaning of Article 1(u)(i) and Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) as amended and updated and applicable in accordance with Annex II, Section A, (1) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons and the Final Act signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ 2002, L 114, p. 6.


title: Case T-329/17: Action brought on 24 May 2017 — Hautala and Others v EFSA

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/34

         Action brought on 24 May 2017 — Hautala and Others v EFSA
   (Case T-329/17)
   (2017/C 249/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Heidi Hautala (Helsinki, Finland), Benedek Jávor (Budapest, Hungary), Michèle Rivasi (Valence, France) and Bart Staes (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul EFSA’s confirmatory decision of 14 March 2017 with reference PAD 2017/005 CA, confirming its decision of 9 December 2016 and 7 October 2016 with reference PAD 2016/034 to refuse most of the documents requested by the applicants; and

               —

               order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (1) by not applying it to the requested information. The exception to disclosure for the protection of ‘commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property’, laid down in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been waived by EFSA and not been applied to the requested information, based on Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Articles 2(4) and 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 (2) and Article 41 of Regulation 178/2002 (3) by refusing to disclose the requested information for the protection of commercial interests of the study-owners, meanwhile not substantiating concrete harm and/or an actual risk to concrete harm, also violating Article 4(4) under d, of the Aarhus Convention, where it is provided that an exception to disclosure may only be granted for protecting the interest of ‘confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, where such confidentiality is protected by law in order to protect a legitimate economic interest’ as no concrete legitimate economic interest has been identified and/or substantiated in the contested measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that EFSA incorrectly applied Article 63(2) of Regulation 1107/2009 (4), as this provision does not apply to the requested information and/or the disclosure of the information is of overriding public interest in the sense of Article 63(2) and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1107/2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that EFSA violated Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 by not recognising that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the studies and by denying the applicants substantiation of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the studies.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by omitting to weight the interest of public access to environmental information in the studies against the private interest of companies to protect their commercial interests and/or letting prevail the economic interests of the companies EFSA violated Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that as the available data do not permit an independent and complete review of EFSA’s peer review on Glyphosate the applicants have an interest in the disclosure of the studies. By denying the general interest and the applicants’ interest in disclosure of the requested information EFSA has violated its obligations under the Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 41 of Regulation 178/2002.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 2006, p. 13)

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

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

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 2009, p. 1)


title: Case C-269/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV
   (Case C-269/17)
   (2017/C 318/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Niemeyer

      Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

      Question referred

   Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (‘the Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-166/00: Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt against the European Environment Agency

text:
26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission. In those circumstances, the choice of recruitment
                                                                          procedure was not determined in accordance with the interests
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               of the service.
T-107/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v Commission (1).
                                                                          The applicant further claims that, since he had been eligible
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          for promotion to grade A4 since 1 April 1998, the contested
                                                                          decision of 13 December 1999, appointing him to the post
                                                                          which he had been occupying for over two years, necessarily
                                                                          removed the obligation to consider the possibility of promot-
                                                                          ing him.
Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt
         against the European Environment Agency
                          (Case T-166/00)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’ against the
                         (2000/C 247/62)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-167/00)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Environment Agency was                                              (2000/C 247/63)
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt, residing
in Copenhagen, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                                  (Language of the case: French)
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’, residing in
—     annul the decision to annul internal competition                    Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
      EEA/T/99/1, notified to the applicant by letter of 27 Sep-          Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      tember 1999;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 concerning the
      transfer of the applicant from the Commission to the
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 August 1999
      European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it classifies
                                                                                refusing to recognise his civil status as a party to a ‘stable
      him in step 3 of grade A5 with effect from 1 November
                                                                                homosexual union’ and to grant him and his partner all
      1999;
                                                                                the resulting entitlements including, in particular, cover
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     under the Joint Sickness and Accident Insurance Scheme,
                                                                                the benefit of the household allowance and the rights
                                                                                conferred by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 including the right not to be subject to immigration
                                                                                restrictions or to formalities for the registration of aliens;
The applicant pleads as follows in opposition to the contested
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
decisions:
—     infringement of Articles 8, 45 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and of           The applicant, a Commission official, concluded with a partner
      the principle of equal treatment;                                   of the same sex, in accordance with the Catalan Law of
                                                                          15 July 1998, a solemn partnership agreement (‘unión estable
—     a misuse of powers in the present case.                             homosexual’). According to the applicant, that agreement
                                                                          creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the
According to the applicant, the annulment of competition                  partners, including in particular the obligation to contribute to
EEA/T/99/1 was decided upon in consequence of an inter-                   household expenses and joint expenditure. The applicant
institutional agreement between the Commission and the                    subsequently submitted a request for recognition of his civil
defendant Agency, according to which a transfer procedure                 status as a party to a ‘unión estable homosexual’ and for the
was chosen in preference to a competition, with a view to                 grant of the household allowance. By the contested decision,
avoiding the risk of the applicant being established in the               the Commission classified the applicant as an unmarried
Agency whilst at the same time retaining his post in the                  person and refused to grant him a household allowance.


title: Case C-514/06 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2008 — Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), nmc SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark ARMAFOAM — Earlier Community trade mark NOMAFOAM — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Existence of a relative ground for refusal in part of the European Community)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September 2008 — Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), nmc SA
   (Case C-514/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ARMAFOAM - Earlier Community trade mark NOMAFOAM - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Existence of a relative ground for refusal in part of the European Community)
   (2008/C 301/12)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Armacell Enterprise GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), nmc SA (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, avocats)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-172/05 Armacell v OHIM whereby the Court dismissed an action by the applicant for the word mark ‘ARMAFOAM’ for goods in Class 20 for annulment of Decision R 552/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 23 February 2005 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘NOMAFOAM’ for goods in Classes 11, 19, 20, 27 and 28
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.