title: Case C-348/02: Action brought on 28 September 2002 against the Italian Republic by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 289/15
that the system has the influence which it is alleged to have on             Pleas in law and main arguments
the prevention of accidents; rather, it tends to encourage the
amicable settlement of small-scale damage claims.
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                             Case C-346/02 ( 2).
( 1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          (1 ) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives           of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)               direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives
     (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).                                               73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)
                                                                                (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).
                                                                             (2 ) See p. 14 of this Official Journal.
                                                                             Action brought on 28 September 2002 against the Italian
                                                                             Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                                                   (Case C-348/02)
                               Republic
                                                                                (2002/C 289/25)
                           (Case C-347/02)
                                                                             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Septem-
                           (2002/C 289/24)                                   ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
                                                                             Agents.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 Septem-
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier, acting as                           Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
                                                                                the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
                                                                                installations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             —      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—      declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a               Pleas in law and main arguments
       system of bonuses and penalties having automatic and
       compulsory repercussions on premium rates and apply-
       ing to all motor insurance contracts concluded on French              Article 249 EC, according to which a directive is to be binding,
       territory, without any distinction being drawn between                as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
       insurance companies based in France and insurance                     which it is addressed, means that Member States are obliged to
       undertakings operating there through a branch or by the               comply with time-limits for transposition laid down by
       provision of services, contrary to the principle of freedom           directives. Although the time-limit expired on 1 April 2001,
       to set premium rates and elimination of prior or system-              the Italian Republic had not enacted the provisions necessary
       atic controls on premium scales and contracts, as laid                to comply with the directive referred to in the Commission’s
       down by Articles 6(3), 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/                  claim.
       EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that directive;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 85 of 29.3.1999, p. 1.
—      order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-256/04: Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/35

         Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-256/04)
   (2004/C 217/63)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG, Basel (Switzerland), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.
   Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 April 2004 (Case R 1004/2002-2);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               ALTANA Pharma AG

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark 'RESPICUR' for goods in Class 5 (Respiratory therapeutics) – Application No 949156

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               German word mark 'RESPICORT' for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations; preparations for medical purposes; plasters)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the opposition

               Pleas in law:

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-184/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/14

         Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-184/08)
   (2008/C 158/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt sanctions under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) and (2) of that regulation;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to Article 18 of Regulation No 648/2004, the Member States are to adopt, no later than 8 October 2005, dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for any infringement of that regulation and they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. At the date at which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted sanctions pursuant to the abovementioned article or, at least, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 9March 2004 in Case C–159/03 P: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank(‘Appeal— Staff of the ECB — Formal warning — Preparatory act — Act which does notadversely affect an official — Inadmissible’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 9 March 2004
   in Case C–159/03 P: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (1)

   (‘Appeal - Staff of the ECB - Formal warning - Preparatory act - Act which does not adversely affect an official - Inadmissible’)
   (2004/C 106/30)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-159/03 P: Jan Pflugradt, agent of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, with an address for service in Luxembourg, brought an appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber), Case T-82/03 Pflugradt v ECB [2003] ECR I-0000, seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: the European Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, N. Urban and B. Wägenbaur), with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President, A La Pergola (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R Grass, Registrar, made an order on 9 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Mr Pflugradt is order to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003


title: Case T-271/06: Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Microsoft v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/56

         Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Microsoft v Commission
   (Case T-271/06)
   (2006/C 294/115)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Microsoft Inc (Seattle, USA) (represented by: J-F. Bellis, G. Berrisch, lawyers, I. S. Forrester, QC and D. W. Hull, Solicitor )

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)3143 final of 12 July 2006 fixing the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft Corporation by Decision C(2005)4420 final and amending that decision as regards the amount;

               —

               in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the periodic penalty payment imposed; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By a decision of 10 November 2005 (the ‘Article 24(1) decision’) adopted pursuant to article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003, the Commission imposed a periodic penalty payment in the event the applicant failed to fulfil its obligation to provide Interoperability Information pursuant to Decision C(2004)900 final of 24 March 2004 (the ‘2004 decision’). The contested Decision C(2006)3143 of 12 July 2006 fixed the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment for the period of 16 December 2005 through 20 June 2006 at 280.5 million EUR.
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision on the basis of the following grounds:
   Firstly, the applicant claims that the Commission violated its duty to give clear information and precise instructions as to what it required for compliance with the 2004 decision. The applicant deemed such information and instructions to be necessary allowing it to opt for the expected means to satisfy the obligation to provide Interoperability Information. In this respect, the applicant further claims that the Commission omitted to include the relevant instructions in the 2004 decision as well as in the Article 24(1) decision itself, whether prior to adoption of the latter, nor until several months had elapsed after such decision was taken.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite standard that the applicant did not comply with its obligation to provide Interoperability Information as required under the 2004 decision. Precisely, the Commission allegedly failed to put forward clear and convincing reasoning supported by sufficiently precise and coherent evidence that (1) the technical documentation that the applicant made available on 15 December 2005 did not comply with the requirements of the 2004 decision; and (2) none of the subsequent steps that the applicant undertook from 16 December 2005 to June 2006 were sufficient to ensure compliance. Specifically and according to the applicant, the Commission thus failed to objectively evaluate the evidence before it and applied the wrong standard in evaluating the technical documentation.
   The applicant advances as a third ground of annulment the fact that the Commission denied it the right to be heard before adopting the contested decision, the reference period for the imposition of the periodic penalty payment being 16 December 2005 through 20 June 2006 while the Statement of Objections was issued on 21 December 2005, not covering a single day of the reference period.
   Fourthly, the applicant contends that the Commission violated its rights of defence by denying it full access to the file, including communications between the Commission, on the one hand, and its experts, on the other.
   Finally, the applicant suggests that the amount of the periodic penalty payment is excessive and disproportionate as the Commission failed to take into account the complexity of the compliance obligation, while it completely disregarded the applicant's substantial good faith efforts to comply with the Commission's previous decisions.


title: Case C-38/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy
   (Case C-38/13)
   2013/C 141/15
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

      Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

      Question referred

   Must Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) clause 1 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, clause 4 of the annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the general principle of European Union law prohibiting discrimination based on the type of employment contract be construed as meaning that they preclude provisions of national law establishing rules for determining the length of the notice period for the termination of fixed-term employment contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months which are different (less favourable for workers employed on fixed-term contracts) from the rules determining the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended employment contracts; more specifically, do they preclude provisions of national law (Article 33 of the Law relating to the Labour Code of 26 June 1974 — Dz. U. 1998, No 21, Position 94, as subsequently amended) which, irrespective of a worker’s length of service, establish a fixed two-week notice period for the termination of fixed-term contracts concluded for a period exceeding six months, whereas the length of the notice period for the termination of open-ended contracts is dependent on the worker’s length of service and may range from two weeks to up to three months (Article 36(1) of the Law relating to the Labour Code)?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-153/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Klub OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Right of deduction — Origin of the right of deduction — Right of a company to deduct the input VAT paid for the acquisition of capital goods not yet brought into use for the company’s business activities)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Klub OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-153/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Right of deduction - Origin of the right of deduction - Right of a company to deduct the input VAT paid for the acquisition of capital goods not yet brought into use for the company’s business activities)
   2012/C 133/16
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Klub OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of the VAT paid by a taxable person in respect of goods supplied to him in so far as they are used for his taxable transactions — Right of a company, whose main activity consists in leasing its own immovable property, to deduct input VAT on the purchase of another property which has yet to be commercially exploited by that company

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has acquired capital goods while acting as such and has allocated the goods to the assets of the business is entitled to deduct the value added tax on the acquisition of those goods in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the goods are not immediately used for business purposes. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the taxable person acquired the capital goods for the purposes of his economic activity and to assess, if need be, whether there is a fraudulent practice.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case T-192/10: Action brought on 26 April 2010 — Ferracci v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/45

         Action brought on 26 April 2010 — Ferracci v Commission
   (Case T-192/10)
   2010/C 179/79
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pietro Ferracci (San Cesareo, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010, by which the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010, by which the applicant’s complaint was dismissed.
   That complaint concerned the exemption from municipal taxes on immovable property provided for in Article 7(1)(i) of Decree-Law No 504/1992 which, under Article 7(2a) of Decree-Law No 203/2005 as converted into law, is intended to apply to the activities referred to in Article 7(1)(i) of Decree-Law No 504/1992, regardless of their potentially commercial nature. In the applicant’s submission, that rule constitutes State aid in favour of ecclesiastical bodies and non-profit making organisations in so far as they pursue commercial activities, or at least economic activities for the purposes of the Community case-law.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in support of his action:

               First of all, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated because it infringes and misapplies, through incorrect interpretation, Article 108(3) TFEU. In fact, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint received on 14 June 2006, the Commission initiated a very lengthy preliminary investigation procedure characterised by an intense exchange of letters with the applicant and requests for information from the national authorities, only to conclude finally in the contested decision that there was no doubt that the measures in question did not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU.

               In the applicant’s submission, it is clear from the extraordinarily long period which elapsed before the preliminary investigation was closed that the Commission was unable to address the doubts raised in the complaint which it ought to have addressed, and that it should at least have pursued the matter in depth by ordering a formal investigation procedure as provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU.

               Moreover, a careful reading of the aforementioned decision on the current tax can only give cause to believe that the Commission had doubts as to whether the disputed measures constituted State aid, but ultimately decided to dismiss the complaint without opening the formal investigation procedure, thereby infringing the applicant’s right to submit observations on any justifications which the Italian authorities might have submitted to the Commission in the context of the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108 TFEU and preventing the necessary examination as to compatibility which the Commission would have had to undertake in order to assess the extent to which competition was distorted as a result of the preferential tax regime which was the subject of the complaint.

               The applicant submits, secondly, that the contested decision should be annulled on grounds of failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU (formerly Article 253 EC).


title: Case T-26/13: Action brought on 18 January 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/20

         Action brought on 18 January 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA)
   (Case T-26/13)
   2013/C 86/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and B. Beinert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Semtee (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fits Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 10 October 2012 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 2432/2011-1) and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

               —

               Alternatively annul the decision of the Fits Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 10 October 2012 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 2432/2011-1) and, to remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation;

               —

               Alternatively annul the decision of the Fits Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 10 October 2012 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 2432/2011-1).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CALDEA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 9 264 433

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration with effect inter alia in the European Union No 894 004 for goods in classes 3, 5 and 8

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-17/12: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-17/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/25
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31. 3. 2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy v Commission of the European Communities (Control of concentrations — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Object of the proceedings — Competence of the Commission under Article 22(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Effect on trade between Member States — Creation of a dominant position)

text:
C 47/28                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Klaus
animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) — the Court of                          Wiedner and Stephen Kinsella), supported by Republic of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,                   Finland (Agents: Tuula Pynnä and David Vaughan QC) and
President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pas-                French Republic (Agents: Jean-François Dobelle, Frédérik Milli-
tor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                on and Kareen Rispal-Bellanger) — application for annulment
judgment on 1 December 1999, the operative part of which is                 of Commission Decision 97/277/EC of 20 November 1996
as follows:                                                                 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
                                                                            market (Case No IV/M.784 — Kesko/Tuko) (OJ 1997 L 110,
1. Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 are joined for the purposes of               p. 53) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
     this judgment.                                                         Extended Composition), composed of: A. Potocki, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996                     A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90              on 15 December 1999, in which it:
     laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
     maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in             1. Dismisses the action;
     foodstuffs of animal origin is annulled, in so far as it restricts the
     validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol to certain   2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of
     specified therapeutic indications for bovines and equines.                  the Commission;
3. For the rest, the applications are dismissed.                            3. Orders the Republic of Finland and the French Republic to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
4. In Case T-125/96, the applicants and Fédération Européenne de
     la Santé Animale (Fedesa), as regards its intervention, are ordered
     to bear their own costs and those of the Council. The United           (1) OJ No C 131 of 26.4.97.
     Kingdom, the Commission and Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie
     Vleeskalverensector (SKV) are ordered to bear their own costs.
5. In Case T-152/96, the Commission is ordered to bear its own
     costs and to pay one-half of the costs of the applicants and
     Fedesa, the other half to be borne by them. The Council and SKV
     are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996 and C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA and
                                                                                Republica SA v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping duties — Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 non-alloy steel — Europe agreement with Romania —
                                                                            Normal value — Dumping margin — Injury — Procedural
                                                                                rights of exporters)
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 47/48)
in Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Control of concentrations — Action for annulment —
Admissibility — Object of the proceedings — Competence
of the Commission under Article 22(3) of Regulation (EEC)                   In Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA, established
No 4064/89 — Effect on trade between Member States —                        in Roman, Romania, and Republica SA, a company incorpor-
                  Creation of a dominant position)                          ated under Romanian law, established in Bucharest, Romania,
                                                                            represented by Alfred L. Merckx, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro &
                            (2000/C 47/47)                                  Lorang, 4 Boulevard Royal, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agents: Stephan Marquardt, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                            Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
                     (Language of the case: English)                        Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Viktor Kreuschitz)
                                                                            — application for the annulment of Council Regulation
In Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy, established in Helsinki, represented             (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive
by Gerwin van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, and Sarah Beeston,               anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against                         Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic,


title: Case C-311/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2011 by Smart Technologies ULC against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-523/09: Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/27

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2011 by Smart Technologies ULC against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-523/09: Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-311/11 P)
   2011/C 269/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Smart Technologies ULC (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, T. Elias, Barrister, R. Harrison, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant seeks an order that:

               —

               the Judgment of 13 April 2011 in Case T-523/09 Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH) be set aside;

               —

               The Decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 be altered to state that the mark applied for possesses sufficient distinctive character such that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009;

               —

               In the alternative, that the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 be annulled;

               —

               The Defendant pay to the Appellant the Appellant's costs of and occasioned by this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant contests the Judgment of the General Court on the following grounds:

               —

               The General Court did not analyse the distinctiveness of the Appellant’s application on its own terms, but by reference as to whether it was or was not a ‘mere’ advertising slogan. The Appellant submits that this is wrong in law and that the correct approach is to analyse distinctiveness by reference to the relevant goods and service and the relevant public. To conclude that there is no distinctive character in the Application because the Application is a mere advertising slogan is to carry out the wrong test as set out in established case law.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by considering that it is harder to establish distinctiveness in relation to an advertising slogan than in relation to any other form of word mark.

               —

               The General Court erred in law in asserting that it was entitled to assume as a well-known fact a matter which required to be proved by evidence, i.e. that consumers do not accord trade mark value to marketing claims.

               —

               The Appellant finally submits that a mark need have only a minimum degree of distinctive character in order to render refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) no 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark inapplicable.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 1999 in Case T-11/99 R: NV Firma Léon Van Parys and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for additional import licences - Procedure for interim relief - Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
18.9.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 265/15
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 April 1999,              Action brought on 22 April 1999 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
the operative part of which is as follows:                                           chain against the European Parliament
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the                                        (Case T-99/99)
    Commission.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                (1999/C 265/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER                              An action against the European Parliament was brought before
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 22 April 1999 by Eoghan O’Hannrachain residing in
                                                                         Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
                        of 28 April 1999                                 Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
in Case T-11/99 R: NV Firma Léon Van Parys and Others                    de Cessange.
       v Commission of the European Communities
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bananas — Application for additional import licences —
   Procedure for interim relief — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                             on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of
                        (1999/C 265/30)                                      Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance
                                                                             and Financial Control, the decision of the same date
                                                                             rejecting the application for that post submitted by the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                             applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
In Case T-11/99 R: NV Firma Léon Van Parys and NV Pacific
Fruit Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific            — request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the
Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and                     Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997
Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established in Rome (Italy),                and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR,
all represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den Hende and                       PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address for service in                 with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue                        of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance
Goethe, against the Commission of the European Communities                   and Financial Control;
(Agent: Hubert van Vliet), supported by the Kingdom of Spain
(Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and the French Republic               — order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti-
(Agent: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger) — application under                         fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty requesting the Court of
First Instance to allow the applicants — or order the Com-               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
mission to take the necessary measures to allow them — to
import in 1999 a quantity of bananes equal to the average of
the quantifies imported by them into the European Community
during 1994 to 1996 and cleared through customs on the
strength of an import licence either by the applicants them-
selves or by another licensee or to make any other appropriate           Pleas in law and main arguments
interim order — the President of the Fifth Chamber of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 28 April 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                         advanced in Case T 97/99 (Chamier v Parliament).
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-249/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 October 2005  — Fintecna v Commission (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Measure against which actions may be brought — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Fintecna v Commission
   (Case T-249/02) (1)

   (European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Measure against which actions may be brought - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 86/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Fintecna — Finanziaria per i settori industriale e dei servizi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and R. de Lisa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially L. Flynn and A. Aresu, subsequently E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's letter of 31 March 2000 in relation to various pieces of financial assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to a number of operational programmes under the Community scheme of support for the achievement of Objectives 1, 3 and 4 in Italy (centre-north and Mezzogiorno)
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case T-204/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Vivartia v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ — Earlier Community figurative mark MILKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Vivartia v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)
   (Case T-204/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ - Earlier Community figurative mark MILKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis, formerly Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE (Tavros, Greece) (represented by: P.-P. Kanellopoulos and V. Kanellopoulos, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2006 (Case R 540/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG and Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case T-249/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Combescot v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Mental harassment — Duty to provide assistance — Career development report for the period 2001/2002 — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Combescot v Commission
   (Case T-249/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Mental harassment - Duty to provide assistance - Career development report for the period 2001/2002 - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 247/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Combescot (Popayan, Colombia) (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo, Agents and C. Corongui, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, declare that the conduct of the applicant's hierarchical superiors is unlawful, declare that the applicant is entitled to assistance and annul his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2002 and, secondly, award damages to compensate the applicant for the loss suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-504/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA — Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Rafhaelo Gutti v EUIPO — Transformados del Sur (CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA)
   (Case T-504/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CAMISERIA LA ESPAÑOLA - Earlier national figurative mark representing two crossed flags - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 129/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Rafhaelo Gutti, SL (Loja, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: B. Uriarte Valiente and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Transformados del Sur, SA (Seville, Spain) (represented by: M. Salas Martin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 2424/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Transformados del Sur and Rafhaelo Gutti.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rafhaelo Gutti, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that Court of 5 February 1998, in the case of Preston and others against Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others, and Fletcher and others against Midland Bank plc (Case C-78/98)

text:
C 184/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
     costs.                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Annulment of the
                                                                     procedure under way Ð Competition notice Ð Post
                                                                        reserved to nationals of new Member States Ð Appeal)
                                                                                (98/C 184/05)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                       of 30 April 1998                                        published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-215/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale, Bologna): Barbara Bellone v. Yokohama                 In Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                            SpA (1)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                     Dalheim, Luxembourg, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of
(Directive 86/653/EEC Ð Independent commercial agents                the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Ð National rules providing that commercial agency                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180, Route de
contracts concluded by persons not entered on the register           Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of
                      of agents are void)                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96
                        (98/C 184/04)                                Rasmussen v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-187 seeking
                                                                     to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                     proceedings being Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Alberto
                                                                     Dal Ferro) Ð the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
                                                                     General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 2 April
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-215/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale, Bologna (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Barbara Bellone and Yokohama SpA Ð on                  (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial
agents (OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17) Ð the Court (First
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             by order of that Court of 5 February 1998, in the case of
a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                  Preston and others against Wolverhampton Healthcare
                                                                     NHS Trust and others, and Fletcher and others against
                                                                                Midland Bank plc
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on                                          (Case C-78/98)
the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                (98/C 184/06)
to self-employed commercial agents precludes a national
rule which makes the validity of an agency contract
conditional upon the commercial agent being entered in               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the appropriate register.                                            European Communities by an order of the House of
                                                                     Lords, of 5 February 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             Court Registry on 23 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the case of Preston and others against
                                                                     Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others, and
                                                                     Fletcher and others against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                     following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.6.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/5
Where:                                                                   (1) Does the implementation of Article 119 through
                                                                               that domestic statute constitute compliance with
                                                                               the principle of EC law that national procedural
(a) a claimant has been excluded from membership of an                         rules for a breach of Community law must be no
     occupational pension scheme by reason of being a                          less favourable than those which apply to similar
     part-time worker; and                                                     claims of a domestic nature?
(b) consequently, has not accrued pension benefits                       (2) If not, what are the relevant criteria for
     referable to service with her employer, which benefits                    determining whether another right of action in
     become payable upon reaching pensionable age; and                         domestic law is a domestic action similar to the
                                                                               right under Article 119?
(c)  the claimant alleges that such treatment is indirect
                                                                         (3) If a national court identifies any such similar
     sex discrimination contrary to Article 119 of the EC
                                                                               claim in accordance with any criteria identified
     Treaty,
                                                                               under (2) above, what, if any, are the relevant
                                                                               criteria under Community law for determining
The following three questions arise:                                           whether the procedural rules governing the
                                                                               similar claim or claims are more favourable than
                                                                               the procedural rules which govern the
1.   Is:                                                                       enforcement of the right under Article 119?
     (a) a national procedural rule which requires that a            3.  In circumstances where:
           claim for membership of an occupational
           pension scheme (from which the right to pension
           benefits flows) which is brought in the Industrial            (a) an employee has served under a number of
           Tribunal be brought within six months of the                        separate contracts of employment for the same
           end of the employment to which the claim                            employer covering defined periods of time and
           relates;                                                            with intervals between the periods covered by
                                                                               the contracts of employment;
     (b) a national procedural rule which provides that a
           claimant's pensionable service is to be calculated            (b) after the completion of any contract, there is no
           only by reference to service after a date falling                   obligation on either party to enter into further
           no earlier than two years prior to the date of her                  such contracts; and
           claim (irrespective of whether the date on which
           pension benefits become payable is before or
           after the date of the claim)                                  (c)   she initiates a claim within six months of the
                                                                               completion of a later contract or contracts but
                                                                               fails to initiate a claim within six months of any
     compatible with the principle of EC law that national                     earlier contract or contracts;
     procedural rules for breach of Community law must
     not make it excessively difficult or impossible in
     practice for the claimant to exercise her rights under              Is a national procedural rule which has the effect of
     Article 119?                                                        requiring a claim for membership of an occupational
                                                                         pension scheme from which the right to pension
                                                                         benefits flow to be brought within six months of the
2.   In circumstances where:                                             end of any contract or contracts of employment to
                                                                         which the claim relates and which, therefore,
     (a) rights under Article 119 fall, as a matter of                   prevents service under any earlier contract or
           domestic law, to be enforced through the                      contracts from being treated as pensionable service,
           medium of a statute which was enacted in 1970,                compatible with:
           prior to the United Kingdom's accession to the
           European Community, and came into effect on                   (1) the right to equal pay for equal work in
           29th December 1975, and which, prior to 8th                         Article 119 of the EC Treaty; and
           April 1976, already conferred a right to equal
           pay and equality of other contractual provisions;
                                                                         (2) the principle of EC law that national procedural
                                                                               rules for breach of Community law must not
     (b) the domestic statute contains the procedural
                                                                               make it excessively difficult or impossible in
           rules referred to in question 1 above;
                                                                               practice for the claimant to exercise her rights
                                                                               under Article 119?
     (c)   other statutes prohibiting discrimination in the
           employment field, and the domestic law of
           contract provide for different time limits;


title: Case C-149/07: Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-149/07)
   (2007/C 129/07)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to establish a specific legal framework for the grant of authorisations for the parallel import of plant protection products into Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 28 EC prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect. The Commission submits that, by failing to establish a specific legal framework regarding the grant of authorisations for the placing on the market of plant protection products which are imported from other Member States, where those products have already obtained authorisation to be placed on the market, and which are identical (within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities) to products already placed on the market in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
   According to the Court of Justice's case-law, in the absence of harmonisation ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions’. The Court has also held that national rules or practices which result in imports being channelled in such a way that only certain traders can effect these imports, whereas others are prevented from doing so, constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction. A procedure under which prior authorisation is required for the sale of imported products must be established by means of rules which are of general application and which also explicitly bind the national authorities. That procedure must be easily accessible and carried out within a reasonable time. It is necessary for such general rules to exist in national law because they enable citizens to exercise the rights accorded to them by Community law.
   While the new proposal for legislative amendment may be accepted by the Commission, it had not entered into force on expiry of the two-month period set in the Commission's reasoned opinion calling for elimination of the infringement. In accordance with settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the legal situation prevailing in that State at the end of the period laid down by the Commission in the reasoned opinion. The Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes in national law.


title: Case C-104/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environmental protection — Directive 2006/21/EC — Waste management — Mining — Tailing ponds — Dust re-emission — Fine airborn dust particles — Pollution — Human health — Obligatory preventative measures — Articles 4 and 13 — Finding of infringement

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/6

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-104/15) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environmental protection - Directive 2006/21/EC - Waste management - Mining - Tailing ponds - Dust re-emission - Fine airborn dust particles - Pollution - Human health - Obligatory preventative measures - Articles 4 and 13 - Finding of infringement)
   (2016/C 343/08)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania (represented by: R. H. Radu, E. Gane, A. Buzoianu and R. Haţieganu, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.

               2.

               Orders Romania to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case F-97/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 October 2013 — Thomé v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/177/10 — Decision not to recruit a successful candidate — Criteria for admissibility — University qualification)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 October 2013 — Thomé v Commission
   (Case F-97/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/177/10 - Decision not to recruit a successful candidate - Criteria for admissibility - University qualification)
   2014/C 9/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Florence Thomé (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Commission’s appointing authority not to recruit the applicant after she had passed competition EPSO/AD/177/10-EPA and an application for damages and interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decisions of 11 November 2011 and 5 June 2012;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Ms Thomé the sum of EUR 14 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Thomé.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012, p. 39.


title: Case C-80/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   (Case C-80/15)
   (2015/C 155/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

      Question referred

   Must Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 (2) be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flight training with helicopters in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter also amounts to a commercial use of a means of transport?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2003, L 343 p. 1).


title: Case T-247/08: Action brought on 20 June 2008 — C-Content v Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/62

         Action brought on 20 June 2008 — C-Content v Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
   (Case T-247/08)
   (2008/C 209/111)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: C-Content BV ('s Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

      Defendant: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office) infringed Community law in relation to tenders and contracts set out in the present application;

               —

               Order the Publications Office to compensate the costs and damages incurred by the applicant, as set out in the present application;

               —

               Order the Publications Office to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages it claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged irregularities committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Publications Office) within certain tender procedures related to electronic publication services.
   The applicant puts forward a number of grounds for liability for every contested tender procedure.
   The applicant claims the Publications Office infringed the principle of good administration and duty diligence as well as the principles of equal treatment, transparency and legitimate expectations:

               1.

               In tender No 2034 for the production and duplication of CD-ROMs containing the L and C series of the Official journal: by awarding the tender to a competitor of the applicant, in spite of the applicant having submitted the economically most advantageous bid; by amending the key specifications and lowering tender requirements during the tender procedure or after the successful tenderer had been selected without informing other competitors; by refusing to carry out a proper review of the tender results when objections concerning the outcome of the tender were brought to the Publications Office's attention; by failing to organise a new tender instead of continuing contract No 2034 on the basis of significantly lowered standards.

               2.

               In tender No 6019 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal, after the accession of 10 new member States: by cancelling the tender on the basis of Article 101 of Regulation 1605/2002 (1) for reason of disclosure of confidential information; the applicant submits that the said disclosure could not have influenced the tender results as the information was already in the public knowledge and the bids had already been submitted by then. Moreover, the applicant claims that there was no proper motivation given by the Publications Office. It finally submits that the cancellation caused significant damage to the applicant which had submitted the most advantageous of the two remaining bids within the cancelled tender.

               3.

               In tender No 1695 for the provision of services in relation to electronic publications, in particular the Supplement (S) of the Official Journal: by using the extension of Contract No 1695 to amend it. The applicant claims that there was no legal basis for the Publications Office to proceed or to authorise the extension of the Contract and, in consequence, to amend it by changing the subcontractor. The applicant submits that the Publications Office failed to seriously negotiate or investigate the possibility of maintaining the applicant as the existing main subcontractor during the remaining period.

         The applicant claims that as a direct result of the abovementioned infringements, it lost its position as the Publications Office's software provider and incurred significant costs, damages and loss of profits and it considers the Publications Office to be liable to compensate them.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 p. 1).


title: Case T-48/01: Action brought on 28 February 2001 by François Vainker and Brenda Vainker against the European Parliament

text:
C 186/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.6.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 28 February 2001 by François Vainker                   Under Articles 236 and 288 EC the first applicant claims
   and Brenda Vainker against the European Parliament                    damages for the loss allegedly caused to him by the disease
                                                                         and damages for the pain and suffering caused to him by the
                          (Case T-48/01)                                 defendant’s alleged mishandling of his request.
                         (2001/C 186/12)                                 The second applicant seeks damages for the pain and suffering
                                                                         which she claims to have suffered by the defendant’s alleged
                                                                         mishandling of her husband’s request.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 February 2001 by François Vainker and Brenda Vainker,
represented by John Grayston and André Bywater of Eversheds,
Brussels (Belgium).
The first applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts in compen-
      sation to the first applicant;
                                                                                (Case T-51/01)
—     interest of 8 % on the amount eventually awarded under
      the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European                                    (2001/C 186/13)
      Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
      pational disease; and
—     any other award of interest payment which the Court                                   (Language of the case: French)
      thinks just and appropriate; and
—     either an annuity to the first applicant from the age of 62        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to compensate him for loss of pension rights, or, such             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono.                 European Communities on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia,
                                                                         residing in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The second applicant claims that the Court should:                       and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts to the second
      applicant for the pain and suffering caused her by the
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      defendant’s conduct during the procedure concerning the
      application by the first applicant for recognition that the        —     annul the decisions not to retain him as acting Head of
      first applicant is suffering from an occupational disease                Unit during a period of restructuring and rejecting his
      and the request for compensation arising thereby, and for                application for the posts of Head of Unit of Units DG
      compensation under the said for non-reimbursed medical                   EAC/A/4, DG EAC/C/2 and DG EAC/C/5 and to reappoint
      expenses.                                                                him ad personam adviser in the Education and Culture
                                                                               Directorate-General;
The joint applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the joint applicants’ costs in
      their entirety, including this action before the Court.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant was Head of Unit at Directorate-General XXI-
The first applicant, a former official of the defendant, contrac-        I/A/4 ‘Promotion of linguistic ability, open and distance
ted an illness that later caused him to be placed on permanent           learning in education, adult education’. On 24 September
invalidity. He considers that this illness is an occupational            1999, the Commission decided to create a new ‘Education,
disease, contracted as a direct result of the institution’s failure      Audiovisual and Culture’ Directorate-General regrouping the
to put in place and/or maintain a safe system of work, and for           services of the former DG X (partially) and the former DG XXII
which he has requested recognition by the defendant as                   and reducing the number of Units from 39 to 28. The
well as compensation in respect thereof. According to the                applicant’s former Unit was divided into three new Units. The
applicants, this request was later granted, although the defend-         Commission decided to reject the applicant’s application for
ant has yet to complete the procedure in respect of the                  each of the three posts of Head of Unit and to reappoint him
compensation due.                                                        as ad personam adviser in the new Directorate-General.


title: Case T-237/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/24

         Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-237/17)
   (2017/C 202/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the EAGF and the EAFRD in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, fruit and vegetables sector, in relation to the investigation (FV 2011/003/ES),

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(1)(a) and (d)(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18), in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

                           —

                           The Kingdom of Spain submits that the Commission infringed Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2200/96, as regards the producer organisation Tilla Huelva, in considering that the three members of that organisation did not meet the ‘producer’ condition and that, consequently, the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation 2200/96 relating to the requirements of democratic scrutiny had not been observed, since that organisation was at all times composed of producers, with the result that the rules of democratic scrutiny laid down in Article 11(1)(d)(3) of Regulation 2200/96 and Article 14 of Commission Regulation 1432/2003, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Regulation 1782/2003 were fulfilled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

                           —

                           In the applicant’s view, the use of a flat-rate assessment in order to impose a financial correction on Andalucia is contrary to what is now Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (which replaces Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005) and the Guidelines concerning the calculations of financial consequences contained in Document VI/5330/97. The flat-rate correction imposed is unlawful and, in any event, disproportionate. The Commission should have imposed a one-off correction in the cases in which there were actually deficiencies. In the alternative, the flat-rate correction should have been 5 %.


title: Case T-233/07 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/39

         Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case T-233/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April 2007 in case F-71/06;

               —

               Grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and, consequently, declare the appeal in Case F-71/06 admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Make an order as to the costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In her appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action by which she sought the annulment of her Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004-31.12.2004.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal has made errors of interpretation and assessment of the facts which led it to hold that the critical assessment of the applicant in the contested CDR was well-founded.


title: Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the European Parliament (Case T-144/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96             KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/29
      — The Commission did not submit a proposal for a                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          generic list to the Council before the entry into force
          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .                           — annul the disciplinary decision removing the applicant
                                                                            from his post, adopted by the defendant on 19 January
      — Failure to make public the product specification for                1996 ,
          feta .
      — Failure to make public the list of approved                     — annul the express decision of 1 7 June 1 996 by which the
          supervisory bodies .                                              defendant rejected the applicant's complaint of 5 March
                                                                             1996 ,
      — In determining whether feta should be registered, the
          Commission failed to follow sound administrative              — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
          practice .
3 . Feta does not meet the conditions for registration                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and the
      registration of feta therefore infringes rules of law             The applicant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state
      relating to the application of the Treaty within the              the reasons on which a decision is based . He states that the
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the             contested disciplinary decision is based on a finding against
      Treaty:                                                           him in criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Premiere
                                                                        Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, but fails to take
      — Feta is a generic description .                                 account of the mitigating circumstances accepted by that
                                                                        court at two successive stages in the criminal proceedings .
      — The designation feta does not fulfil the conditions             The applicant considers that the disciplinary authority
          for registration as an indirect designation of origin         thereby failed in its obligation to give reasons , by virtue of
          under Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                   which it was required to examine all relevant information
          No 2081 /92 .
                                                                        before adopting the major penalty of removal of the
                                                                        applicant from his post, and committed a manifest error of
4 . The registration of feta infringes fundamental principles           assessment .
      of EC law and thus the Treaty, including Article 6 and
      Article 40 ( 3 ), and the principle of the protection of          The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to have regard
      legitimate expectations for the purposes of the second            for the welfare of officials . He criticizes the disciplinary
      paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty:                           authority for not taking account of his state of health, even
      — The registration of feta as a protected designation of          though the criminal court considered that it warranted a
          origin for the benefit of Greek producers represents          shorter period of imprisonment, suspended subject only to
          discrimination against the applicants in breach of            the condition that his health be monitored by a doctor. For
          Article 6 and Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                 the applicant, reasonable discharge of the duty to have
                                                                        regard for the welfare of officials justified a minor
      — The registration of feta in Regulation ( EC )                   disciplinary sanction rather than the major sanction of
          No 1107/96 breaches the principle of the protection           removal from his post.
          of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Finally, the applicant contends that the disciplinary decision
C ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                               undermined his right to a fair hearing since, in its preamble ,
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             it refers to his ' subsequent attitude' regarding the matters
                                                                        criticized, but gives no specific information relating to such
                                                                        matters .
Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the
                        European Parliament
                           ( Case T-144/96 )                            Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Gra^a de
                                                                        Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European
                             ( 96/C 354/58 )                                                       Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-146/96 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                    96/C 354/59 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought                                   (Language of the case: French)
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 September 1996 by 'Y', represented by
Gerard Colin , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 September


title: Case C-524/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Hansestadt Lübeck, successor in law to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (Appeal — State aid — Airport charges — Article 108(2) TFEU — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility of an action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 107(1) TFEU — Condition relating to selectivity)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Hansestadt Lübeck, successor in law to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH
   (Case C-524/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Airport charges - Article 108(2) TFEU - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Admissibility of an action for annulment - Person individually concerned - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 107(1) TFEU - Condition relating to selectivity))
   (2017/C 053/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, R. Sauer and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Hansestadt Lübeck, successor in law to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and I. Ruck, Rechtsanwälte)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ 26, 26.1.2015.