title: Case C-176/99 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 1999 by ARBED SA against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-137/94 ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 299/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Appeal brought on 11 May 1999 by ARBED SA against                           defence. Furthermore, in justifying the attribution of
the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court                        TradeARBED’s conduct to ARBED on the ground that it
of First Instance of the European Communities (Second                       was ‘established that TradeARBED does not independently
Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-137/94                             determine its conduct on the Community market in beams
ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities                           but essentially follows the instructions issued to it by the
                                                                            applicant (ARBED)’, the Court infringed its obligation to
                      (Case C-176/99 P) (*)                                 state reasons by basing its analysis on an assertion which
                                                                            it fails entirely to substantiate. The Court erred in law in
                                                                            interpreting the scope of the statement of objections on
                        (1999/C 299/01)                                     the basis of extraneous factors. In so far as it appears that
                                                                            the Court accepted, as evidence that the ARBED company
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the               knew that the infringements alleged had been attributed to
European Communities on 11 May 1999 by ARBED SA,                            it from the outset, the fact that the replies given by
represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar,               TradeARBED to the requests for information and to the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul             statement of objections were provided by the legal service
Ehmann, Head of the Legal Service in ARBED, 19 Avenue de                    of the ARBED group or under cover of a letter from
la Liberté, against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999                 ARBED’s lawyer, the Court committed a manifest error
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  tantamount to a failure to state reasons. In forming the
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-137/94                     view that ARBED had had an opportunity to set out its
ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities.                          views on the attribution of responsibility envisaged by the
                                                                            Commission at the time of its request for information on
The appellant claims that the Court should annul the judgment               its turnover, the Court committed a manifest error of law
of the Court of First Instance and:                                         in treating a simple request for information as a statement
                                                                            of objections.
— as the case stands at present, annul the Commission
    decision and order the Commission to pay the costs of
    both sets of proceedings;
    or                                                                  — In altering the scope of the declarations contained in
                                                                            the minutes of the Commission meeting and in giving
— failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First                   preference to one element in those minutes incompatible
    Instance and reserve the costs.                                         with another element in the same minutes, the Court
                                                                            infringed the principle that measures must be authentic
                                                                            and deprived the appellant of the right to be assured that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             the decision the subject of the action had been adopted in
                                                                            compliance with the principle of collegiate responsibility.
— The Court of First Instance was wrong to refuse to censure
    the fact that the decision which was the subject of the
    action was addressed to, and the fine imposed on, ARBED
    SA rather than TradeARBED. In concluding that the
    Commission had, in its decision, attributed TradeARBED’s            — The Court acted unlawfully in forming the view that it
    conduct to ARBED, at any rate within the meaning given                  could be assumed that essential procedural requirements
    to the notion of attribution in its judgment, the Court                 and, more particularly, the rules in the Commission’s
    substituted its reasoning for that of the Commission and                Rules of Procedure concerning authentication of measures
    thus exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction to annul                   adopted by the College of Commissioners had been
    measures and adversely affected the appellant’s rights of               complied with.
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.10.1999
— The Court infringed the rights of the defence in ruling itself        2. Having regard in full to the forms of order sought at first
     on the consequences to be attached to the role played by                instance, annul Article 2 of the respondent’s Decision
     DG III during the period in question, as revealed during                C(94)321 of 16 February 1994 and that part of Article 3
     the judicial proceedings, rather than annulling the decision            of that decision which concerns the appellant;
     in order to enable the Commission to rule anew by taking
     into account those factors and the arguments which the             3. Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     undertakings might derive from them.
— Infringement by the Court of Article 65 of the ECSC                   Pleas in law and main arguments
     Treaty: in interpreting Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, and
     more particularly the notion of normal competition,                — Infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty through
     autonomously and in failing to take account of that                     a legally incorrect interpretation of what constitutes
     provision’s place in the Treaty and of the fact that it                 ‘decisions by associations of undertakings’. The relevance
     pursues other objectives, the Court acted contrary not only             of decisions taken by associations from the point of view
     to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the              of competition law lies in the fact that even those members
     judgment in Case 13/60 Geitling v High Authority (1), but               which did not vote in favour are also bound. If, as
     also to its own jurisprudence in Case T-239/94 EISA v                   presumed in the present case, there is an agreement
     Commission (2). It follows from the Court’s own analysis                between undertakings, it is superfluous also to seek a
     that this approach, which consisted in at least tacitly                 decision by an association. Activities within an association
     encouraging certain conduct which was capable of having                 such as the organisation of information exchange are
     obvious restrictive effects on competition on condition                 unilateral actions on the part of an institution, which
     that such conduct tended in the direction of the general                cannot enter into cartel agreements with itself. The associ-
     policy followed by the Commission, was maintained                       ation activities here in issue are auxiliary services which
     during the years concerned by the decision.                             the association provides for its members. That situation
                                                                             cannot be classified as a cartel. The prohibition in Article
                                                                             65(1) of the ECSC Treaty is therefore not applicable.
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
(1) (1962) ECR 83.                                                      — Infringement of Article 15, first paragraph, of the ECSC
(2) (1997) ECR II-1839.
                                                                             Treaty by reason of grounds which are wrong in law,
                                                                             intrinsically contradictory and ignore the limit of the
                                                                             Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae, in regard to the finding
                                                                             in Article 2 of Decision C(94)321 that Eurofer organised
                                                                             an exchange of confidential information ‘in connection with’
                                                                             the infringements committed by its members.
                                                                        — Infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty and
                                                                             failure by the Court to respect the limits of its jurisdiction
Appeal brought on 17 May 1999 by EUROFER ASBL
                                                                             ratione materiae by reason of its legally erroneous interpret-
against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
                                                                             ation of what constitutes ‘... tending ...’ in the application of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             that term to allegedly anti-competitive consequences of
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case
                                                                             the Eurofer information exchange.
T-136/94 EUROFER ASBL v Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                        — Infringement of Articles 15, first paragraph, and 65(1) of
                                                                             the ECSC Treaty through a legally erroneous interpretation
                      (Case C-179/99 P) (*)                                  and application of the term ‘prevent, restrict or distort ...
                                                                             competition’ and through contradictory reasoning in the
                                                                             application of that term to the information exchange
                         (1999/C 299/02)                                     organised by Eurofer:
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the                The knowledge by the participants in the Eurofer infor-
European Communities on 17 May 1999 by EUROFER ASBL,                         mation exchange that a participant in the product group
represented by Norbert Koch, of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue,                  ‘beams’ had increased its turnover could only strengthen
480 Avenue Louise, B-1050 Brussels, with an address for                      their general competitive efforts, but could not provoke a
service at the offices of EUROFER ASBL, 241 Route d’Arlon,                   targeted counter reaction. Participants did not know which
L-1150 Luxembourg, against the judgment delivered on                         specific product or which customer was responsible for
11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European                 the increase in volume. In addition, the information
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in                        referred to the performance (supply) of transactions which
Case T-136/94 EUROFER ASBL v Commission of the European                      had been concluded at least three and a half months,
Communities.                                                                 mostly six, and in some cases seven months previously,
                                                                             and thus too late to counter the advance acquired by one
                                                                             of the participants.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. Set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered by the Court        (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     of First Instance on 11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94
     EUROFER ASBL v COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
     COMMUNITIES;


title: Case T-625/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark Darjeeling collection de lingerie — Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)
   (Case T-625/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling collection de lingerie - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1502/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1502/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-446/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Ioannis Doulamis (Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC — National legislation prohibiting advertising of dental care services)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Ioannis Doulamis
   (Case C-446/05) (1)

   (Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC - National legislation prohibiting advertising of dental care services)
   (2008/C 116/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles
   Party in the main criminal proceedings
   Ioannis Doulamis

      Intervening parties: Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique (UPR), Jean Totolidis
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 81 EC, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and Article 3(1)(g) EC — National legislation prohibiting all advertising in the dental care sector
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does not preclude a national law, such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case C-286/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC — Hazardous waste — Obligation to draw up and adopt a hazardous-waste management plan — Obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Disposal of hazardous waste)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-286/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC - Hazardous waste - Obligation to draw up and adopt a hazardous-waste management plan - Obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Disposal of hazardous waste)
   2009/C 267/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and Articles 5(1) and (2), 7(1), 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) (formerly Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991) — Breach of Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Failure to draw up a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the Community legislation and to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste — Failure to fulfil obligations so far as concerns the management and landfill of waste.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste characterised by the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health, and

               2.

               by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste and Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,
               the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12, second, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689, read in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12, and, third, Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31.

               3.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-409/09: Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/27

         Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-409/09)
   2010/C 11/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athenes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 2 000 000, corresponding to the gross profit of the applicant (50 % of the contract value);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 100 000 corresponding to the damage suffered because of the missed opportunity to execute contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is dismissed.

      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 Commission’s decision of 15 September 2004 to reject the applicant’s bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender FISH/2004/02 for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate — General for Fisheries (1) and to award the contract to the successful contractor. In its judgment of 10 September 2008 (2) the Court of First Instance found that, when adopting the said decision the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 100 of the Financial Regulation (3) and Article 149 of the Implementing Rules to state reasons. The Court did not rule on the other pleas in law relied on by the applicant.
   The applicant states in support of its contentions that through the above judgment the Court recognized that the evaluation committee confused award and selection criteria and valuated wrongly the tender of the applicant rejecting it unfoundedly.
   Furthermore, the applicant raises additional irregularities in the above tendering procedure which were submitted in Case T-465/04 that were not examined and commented by the Court. The applicant argues that the Commission infringed the principle of non-discrimination and free competition and the principle of good administration and diligence and that it committed evident errors of appreciation. It claims that in such circumstances, the infringement of Community law establishes a sufficiently serious breach of law.
   The applicant submits that since the Court annulled the Commission decision after the contract awarded based on the annulled decision was fully executed, the applicant requests compensation for the non awarding of the said contract as well as for loss of opportunity.

      (1)  OJ 2004/S 73 — 061407.

      (2)  Case T-465/04, Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, ECR 2008, p. II-00154.

      (3)  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 F-117/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 –Cat v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising bonus annuities applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/52

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 –Cat v Commission
      (Case F-117/14) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising bonus annuities applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/67)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Michel Cat (Cotonou, Benin) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decisions to add years of pensionable service acquired by the applicant in the European Union pension scheme on application of the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 56.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2001 in Case T-188/99: Euroalliages v Commission of the European Communities (Dumping — Decision terminating an expiry review — Action for annulment)

text:
C 3/24                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
2.    Orders that the sums referred to in paragraph (1) above shall            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      bear simple interest at the same rate from the date of the present
      judgment until full and final payment;                                                    of 19 September 2001
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          in Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                 Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                In Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
                                                                           (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          of 20 June 2001                                  Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
in Case T-188/99: Euroalliages v Commission of the                         nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 73/1999-3), which
(Dumping — Decision terminating an expiry review —                         was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                      Action for annulment)                                Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                            (2002/C 3/38)
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-188/99: Euroalliages, whose head office is in Brussels           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(Belgium), represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
N. Khan and, subsequently, V. Kreuschitz and A.P. Bentley) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/426/EC of 4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in
Egypt and Poland (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 91) — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                                       of 20 September 2001
of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           in Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica v Commission
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which                             of the European Communities (1)
it:
                                                                           (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                           the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                                  — Rights of defence)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 3/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica, an official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case T-418/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/33

         Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)
   (Case T-418/13)
   2013/C 325/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (R 2001/2011-4);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Richter+Frenzel’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Community trade mark application No 8 545 998

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ferdinand Richter GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RICHTER’, the figurative mark ‘RICHTER edition’ and the non-registered mark ‘Richter’ used in the course of trade in Austria

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-156/09: Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Four Ace International v OHIM (skiken)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/43

         Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Four Ace International v OHIM (skiken)
   (Case T-156/09)
   2009/C 153/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Four Ace International Ltd (represented by G. Uphoff, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 February 2009 — served on 11 February 2009 — in Case R 519/2008-4 concerning the application for Community trade mark No 5819371 and amend it so as to enable registration to proceed in respect of the following goods and services: Class 39 — travel arrangement and Class 41 — education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘skiken’ for services in Classes 35, 39, 41 and 43

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), since the trade mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need for it to be allowed to remain available.

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


title: Case T-284/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (IMPLANTCONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/48

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (IMPLANTCONTROL)
   (Case T-284/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2010 in case R 1438/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMPLANTCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case F-67/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — Lesniak v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Appointment — Temporary agents appointed as officials — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules — Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — Lesniak v Commission
   (Case F-67/06) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Appointment - Temporary agents appointed as officials - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 234/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Šulce, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission decision of 8 August 2005 appointing the applicant — at that time a member of the temporary staff in grade A*10, step 2, and a successful candidate in External Competition PE/99/A — as a probationary official in grade A*6, step 2

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to beat their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178 of 29.07.06, p. 43.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 101, 26.4.2003

text:
10.5.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 112/49
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 112/90)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
          OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
          OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
          OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
          OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
          OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-533/09: Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/8

         Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-533/09) (1)

   2012/C 109/15
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-318/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/31

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)
   (Case T-318/16)
   (2016/C 287/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-444S’– Application for registration No 12 780 061

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1573/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-82/06: Action brought on  8 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/17

         Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-82/06)
   (2006/C 86/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to draw up or communicate:

                           —

                           a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended, for the Province of Rimini,

                           —

                           a waste management plan including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste and hazardous waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, for the Region of Lazio,

                           —

                           a waste management plan in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2) for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended, and Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Member States are required, under Articles 6 and 7 of the Waste Directive, as amended, and the Dangerous Waste Directive, respectively, to draw up and communicate to the Commission waste management plans.
   The current situation in Italy is that the drawing up and communication of waste management plans have yet to be completed. At the present time, the Commission has yet to receive notification of all of the plans required under the two above-mentioned directives.

      (1)  OJ L 194, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 377, p. 20.


title: Case C-483/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Magatte Gueye

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Magatte Gueye
   (Case C-483/09)
   2010/C 37/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Magatte Gueye

      Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal and Eva Caldes

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the right of the victim to be understood, referred to in recital (8) of the preamble to the Framework Decision, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities responsible for the prosecution and punishment of conduct which has an identifiable victim have a positive obligation to allow the victim to express her assessment, thoughts and opinion on the direct effects on her life which may be caused by the imposition of penalties on the offender with whom she has a family relationship or a strong emotional relationship?

               2.

               Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the duty of States to recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims creates the obligation to take into account their opinions when the penalties arising from proceedings may jeopardise fundamentally and directly the development of their right to freedom of personal development and the right to private and family life?

               3.

               Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities may not disregard the freely expressed wishes of victims where the imposition or maintenance in force of an injunction to stay away from the victim when the offender is a member of their family are opposed by the victim and where no objective circumstances indicating a risk of re-offending are established, where it is possible to identify a level of personal, social, cultural and emotional competence which precludes any possibility of subservience to the offender or, rather, as meaning that such an order should be held appropriate in every case in the light of the specific characteristics of such crimes?

               4.

               Should Article 8 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA providing that States are to guarantee a suitable level of protection for victims be interpreted as permitting the general and mandatory imposition of injunctions to stay away from the victim or orders prohibiting communication as ancillary penalties in all cases in which a person is a victim of crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those offences, or, on the other hand, does Article 8 require that an assessment of each individual case be undertaken to allow the identification, on a case-by-case basis, of the suitable level of protection having regard to the competing interests?

               5.

               Should Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as permitting a general exclusion of mediation in criminal proceedings relating to crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those crimes or, on the other hand, should mediation also be permitted in proceedings of that kind, assessing the competing interests on a case-by-case basis?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001, L 82, p. 1)


title: Case T-297/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Coedo Suárez v Council (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post and reduction of the invalidity allowance — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Error of law — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-297/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Removal from post and reduction of the invalidity allowance - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Error of law - Duty to state reasons))
   (2016/C 078/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:25), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14) in so far as it rejects the second complaint of the first plea in law raised at first instance, concerning the assessment of the mitigating circumstances;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Ángel Coedo Suárez before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-38/14;

               3.

               Orders Mr Coedo Suárez to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear half of its own costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
   (2008/C 171/54)
   On 12 June 2008, the Court of First Instance decided to amend the decision of 19 September 2007 in consequence of the resignation of Judge Cooke and, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Papasavvas to replace the President of the Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.


title: Case T-204/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (OLYMP)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/21

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (OLYMP)
   (Case T-204/09)
   2009/C 167/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Bellido, S.A. (Manzanares, Ciudad Real, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2009 in case R 598/2008-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘OLYMP’ for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘OLIMPO’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark concerned invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, due to the fact that the concerned trade marks are not visually, aurally or conceptually similar.


title: Case T-252/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2006 — Caviar Anzali v OHIM — Novomarket (Asetra) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark ASETRA — Previous national and international figurative trade mark CAVIAR ASTARA — Relative grounds for refusal — Risk of confusion — Rejection of opposition for failure to produce documents within the prescribed periods — Evidence produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Admissibility — Scope of the examination conducted by the Boards of Appeal — Articles 62 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2006 — Caviar Anzali v OHIM — Novomarket (Asetra)
   (Case T-252/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark ASETRA - Previous national and international figurative trade mark CAVIAR ASTARA - Relative grounds for refusal - Risk of confusion - Rejection of opposition for failure to produce documents within the prescribed periods - Evidence produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Admissibility - Scope of the examination conducted by the Boards of Appeal - Articles 62 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 224/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Caviar Anzali SAS (Colombes, France) (represented by: J.-F. Jésus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Novomarket, SA (Madrid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 479/2003-2) concerning the opposition proceedings between Caviar Anzali SAS and Novomarket, SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 April 2004 (Case R 479/2003-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of agricultural products — Directive 89/662/EEC — Article 5 — Veterinary checks in the Member State of destination of the goods — National system of prior notification imposed on importers of certain products of animal origin from other Member States)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of agricultural products - Directive 89/662/EEC - Article 5 - Veterinary checks in the Member State of destination of the goods - National system of prior notification imposed on importers of certain products of animal origin from other Member States)
   (2005/C 315/02)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström van Lier and A. Bordes) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 March 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining a system of compulsory prior notification for imports of certain food products of animal origin from other Member States, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.05.2003.


title: Case T-624/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/45

         Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission
   (Case T-624/15)
   (2016/C 016/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania), Starmill Srl (Drăgăneşti), Multipack Srl (Drăgăneşti), Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

               —

               alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns each of the applicants, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicants shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicants, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 83, p. 1 (as amended).


title: Case C-176/04: Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/34

         Action brought on 14 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-176/04)
   (2004/C 118/64)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by A. Goldman, acting as Agent assisted by H. Gilliams, acting as avocat
   The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2004/1367EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of EURO 9,322,809 for arable crops in respect of the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, on the basis of its comprehensive jurisdiction, reduce the correction of EUR 9,322,809 applied by the Commission to EUR 1,079,814.

               —

               The applicant also asks that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The two infringements alleged by the Commission to have been committed by Belgium, namely incomplete administrative checks and delay in the introduction of the graphic data for the crop years in question, are in reality based on a misapplication by the Commission of the Community provisions. The Commission is therefore wrong to impose a fixed correction on the applicant.

      (1)  OJ L 40 of 10.2.2004, p. 31.


title: Case T-351/10: Action brought on 26 August 2010 — Milux v OHMI (VESICACONTROL)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/54

      Action brought on 26 August 2010 — Milux v OHMI (VESICACONTROL)
      (Case T-351/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/100)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2010 in case R 1439/2009-4;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VESICACONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

         Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment to the facts in this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Joined Cases T-225/06 RENV, T-255/06 RENV, T-257/06 RENV and T-309/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations ‘bud’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Joined Cases T-225/06 RENV, T-255/06 RENV, T-257/06 RENV and T-309/06 RENV) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD - Appellations ‘bud’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2013/C 63/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, C. Petsch, S. Sculy-Logotheti and T. Lachacinski, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Anheuser-Busch LLC (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, B. Goebel and A. Renck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2006 (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June 2006 (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-401/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství (Agriculture — EAGGF — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Support for rural development — Early retirement support — Transferor not less than 55 years old but not yet of normal retirement age at the time of transfer — Concept of ‘normal retirement age’ — National legislation determining a retirement age which varies depending on the sex of the applicant and, for women, on the number of children raised — General principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-401/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - EAGGF - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Support for rural development - Early retirement support - Transferor not less than 55 years old but not yet of normal retirement age at the time of transfer - Concept of ‘normal retirement age’ - National legislation determining a retirement age which varies depending on the sex of the applicant and, for women, on the number of children raised - General principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination)
   2013/C 156/10
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Blanka Soukupová

      Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Support for early retirement in agriculture payable to a transferor aged at least 55 but not having reached normal retirement age at the time of transfer — Concept of ‘normal retirement age’ — National legislation laying down a variable retirement age depending on sex and, for women, the number of children brought up

      Operative part of the judgment

   It is incompatible with European Union law and the general principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination for ‘normal retirement age’, for the purposes of the second indent of Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations, to be determined differently depending on the gender of the applicant for support for early retirement from farming and, in the case of female applicants, on the number of children raised by the applicant, under the provisions of the national retirement scheme of the Member State concerned relating to the age required for entitlement to an old-age pension.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case T-214/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Methacrylates market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation in a part of the cartel — Rights of the defence — Fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity of the infringement — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Duration of procedure — Reasonable time)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission
   (Case T-214/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Methacrylates market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Participation in a part of the cartel - Rights of the defence - Fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Duration of procedure - Reasonable time)
   2012/C 209/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by D. Anderson QC, H. Rosenblatt, B. Lebrun, lawyers, W. Turner, S. Berwick and T. Soames, Solicitors, subsequently by R. Wesseling and C. Swaak and lastly by R. Wesseling, C. Swaak and F. ten Have, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Amato, subsequently by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Arbault and lastly by V. Bottka and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed under that provision.

      Operative part of the judgment:

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-214/06: Order of the President of the Court of 5 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Colasfalti S.r.l. v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Colasfalti S.r.l. v Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc
   (Case C-214/06) (1)

   (2008/C 313/33)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case T-244/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission (Interim measures — Fishing vessel — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization — Admissibility — Application for interim measures — Lack of interest)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/36

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission
   (Case T-244/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Fishing vessel - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - Admissibility - Application for interim measures - Lack of interest))
   (2017/C 293/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: António Conde & Companhía, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures ordering the European Commission to abstain from exerting pressure on the Republic of Portugal to exclude the fishing vessel Calvão from the list of Portuguese-flagged vessels authorised to fish in the NAFO regulatory area.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-359/13: Action brought on 11 July 2013 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/41

         Action brought on 11 July 2013 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)
   (Case T-359/13)
   2013/C 252/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spain Doce 13, SL (Crevillente, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert (Alicante, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 April 2013 in Case R 1046/2012-5 in so far as it refuses registration of Community trade mark application No 9 522 384 in relation to the following goods and services:

                           —

                           Class 18: goods made of leather and imitations of leather not included in other classes;

                           —

                           Class 25: clothing, footwear and headgear;

                           —

                           Class 35: retail and wholesale services of clothing, footwear and accessories;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Spain Doce 13, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VICTORIA DELEF’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 522 384

      Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Becerra Guibert

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word element ‘VICTORIA’, ‘Victoria’ and ‘victoria’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-548/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Scope — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation capping deductions of training costs incurred after a certain age — Access to vocational training)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën
   (Case C-548/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Scope - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation capping deductions of training costs incurred after a certain age - Access to vocational training))
   (2017/C 014/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.J. de Lange

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the tax treatment of vocational training costs incurred by a person differs depending on his age, comes within the material scope of that directive to the extent to which the scheme is designed to improve access to training for young people.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows persons who have not yet reached the age of 30 to deduct in full, under certain conditions, vocational training costs from their taxable income, whereas that right to deduct is restricted in the case of persons who have reached that age, in so far as, first, that scheme is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective relating to employment and labour market policy and, second, the means of attaining that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-28/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/29

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)
   (Case T-28/09)
   (2009/C 82/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mo-Hwa Park (Hillscheid, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chong-Yun Bae (Berlin, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1882/2007-4; and

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation has been sought: the figurative mark ‘PINE TREE’ for goods in Class 28 (Community trade mark No 318 857)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Chong-Yun Bae

      Applicant for the declaration of revocation: the applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of revocation of the Community trade mark concerned

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the application for a declaration of revocation of the trade mark concerned

      Pleas in law: inadmissibility of the appeal and absence of use of the Community trade mark concerned capable of maintaining in force the right to use it, in accordance with Article 15 and the first sentence of Article 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of C-176/95

text:
No C 199/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 Removal from the register of C-282/94 ( ')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/35 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                       By order of 17 April 1997, the President of the Court of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                      removal from the register of Case C-282/94 : French
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                          Republic v. Commission of the European Communities .
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
laid down in Article 21 of the Directive, expired without
the Portuguese Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions.
H OJNoL20, 26 . 1 . 1980 , p . 43 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 174/95 ( ] )
                                                                                97/C 199/36 )
                                                                          By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           from the register of Case C-l 74/95 ( Reference for a
                                   Belgium                                preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                          Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                             ( Case C-190/97 )
                                                                          Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                               ( 97/C 199/34 )                            against Siro Mattei .
                                                                          ( ] ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                                    Removal from the register of C-175/95 (')
Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/37 )
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                    By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-175/95 ( Reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
       with     Commission          Directives    93/72/EEC ( l ) . of     Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
       1 September 1993 and 93/101 /EC (2 ) of 11 November                 against Bruno Belli .
       1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th and
       20th time respectively Council Directive 67/548/EEC                 H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
       on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions relating to the classification,
       packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( 3 ),
       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives, and
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l 76/95 (')
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                       ( 97/C 199/38 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  from the register of Case C-l 76/95 ( Reference for a
 put forward in Case C-l 86/97: the relevant time-limits                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 expired on 1 July 1994 and 1 January 1995 respectively.                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 (') OJ No L 258 , 16 . 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .                               against Armando Scrocca .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1994 , p . 1 .
 ( 3 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                          (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 21 March 1996, in the case of Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (Case C-181/96)

text:
No C 210/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 7 . 96
      instead of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, has resulted in a        Action brought on 29 May 1996 by the Federal Republic of
      breach of the essential procedural requirements laid               Germany against the Commission of the European
      down by that provision . Thus :                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-182/96 )
      — the Act was adopted without the submission of a
           proposal by the Commission ( it was adopted on the                                          96/C 210/ 17 )
           initiative of the French Republic ),
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
      — the Act was adopted without the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
           Parliament being consulted ; the European                     European Communities on 29 May 1996 by the Federal
           Parliament     was     not    even   informed   of   the      Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
           initiative ,                                                  Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
                                                                         and Sabine Maass, probationary Regierungsràtin in the
      — since the Council chose to act within the framework              same Ministry.
           of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, its
           decision should have been unanimous, whereas, on
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the basis of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, the Act
           could ( from 1 January 1996 ) have been adopted by a          — annul Decision (K 96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
           qualified majority, pursuant to Article 100c ( 3 ) of               13 March 1 996 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
           the EC Treaty,                                                      depreciation favouring German undertakings,
      — by adopting the Act of 4 March 1996 in the
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           form of 'joint action', the Council created a
           misunderstanding as to the precise legal nature of the
           instrument .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
( ] ) 96/ 197/JHA, OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
( 2 ) OJ No L 164, 14 . 7 . 1995 , p . 1 .                               in Case C-46/96(M .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p . 4 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
21 March 1996, in the case of Georg Wilkens v.                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                 Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover                          Genova — Sezione prima civile — by an order of 9 May
                           ( Case C-181 /96 )                            1996 in the case of Icat Food SRL and Ministero delle
                                                                                Finanze dello Stato
                             ( 96/C 210/16 )
                                                                                ( Case C-183 /96 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                               ( 96/C 210/ 18 )
European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court ) of 21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court               European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
Registry on 29 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                    Genova — Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
the case of Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer                       Civil Section ) of 9 May 1996 which was received at the
( Chamber of Agriculture ) Hannover on the following                     Court Registry on 30 May 1996 . The grounds of the order
questions :                                                              and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are the
                                                                         same as in Case C-47/95 , inter alia (') .
 1 . Does the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84, as amended by                       f 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 1 ), preclude granting a
       provisional special reference quantity to producers who
       have been asked to repay a non-marketing or conversion
       premium on account of a breach of the undertaking
       given by them ?
                                                                         Action brought on 31 May 1996 by the Commission of the
2 . If so, is that rule compatible with the Community law                      European Communities against the French Republic
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
       and proportionality ?                                                                      ( Case C-l 84/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 19 )
 (!) OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 35 .
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 31 May 1 996 by the Commission of