title: Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola against European Investment Bank (Case T-208/98)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/31
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs           Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.
authorities of a rebate application lodged on 20 December
1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
originating in and emanating from Poland.                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs
The dispute concerns, in essence, a disagreement
                                                                   authorities of a rebate application lodged on 23 October
concerning the customs nomenclature applicable to the
                                                                   1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
products in question and the question whether those
                                                                   originating in and emanating from Poland.
products should be allocated to the tariff quota for
Poland.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                   Case T-205/98 Clauni v Commission.
The applicants state that the national authorities did not
arrange for any proper analysis of the goods by an
independent authority with a view to verifying the
administrative authorities' assertion that the mushrooms
were deep-cooked. On the contrary, the only serious and
independent analysis carried out in the present case
concluded that the products were not deep-cooked.
                                                                   Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
                                                                                against European Investment Bank
The applicants also maintain that the Commission, as the                                 (Case T-208/98)
general guardian of the Treaty, possesses its own                                         (1999/C 71/59)
competence in customs matters, so that any failure on the
part of customs authorities of the Member States to
observe the principles of Community law or to forward a                           (Language of the case: Italian)
rebate application must result in the Communities
incurring non-contractual liability in the application of
Community customs law.                                             An action against the European Investment Bank was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
Lastly, for the purposes of providing all such further             an official of the European Investment Bank, represented
clarification of their position as may be necessary, the           by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
applicants refer to an expert's report annexed to the              in Luxembourg at 16 Rue du Kiem, 8030 Strassen.
application.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the promotions communicated on 6 August
                                                                       1998 in so far as they do not contain the applicant's
                                                                       name;
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
Others against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                                                                   Ð annul the decision contained in the report of the
                      (Case T-206/98)                                  Appeals Committee attached to the letter sent by Mr
                                                                       Pietila dated 23 September 1998; and
                       (1999/C 71/58)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for physical,
               (Language of the case: French)                          non-material and material damage in the terms set out
                                                                       above.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La           The material facts are as set forth in Case T-7/98 De
Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented            Nicola v EIB (1). The applicant would add however that he
by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot             has had to leave his employment with the defendant as a
(France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         result of the strong pressure which he claims to have been
Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              subjected to by his immediate superiors.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant states that there has      In respect of that decision, the applicant pleads:
been misuse of power inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
have been infringed.
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                       so far as the conditions for the application of that
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 30.
                                                                       article are not satisfied in the present case;
                                                                   Ð breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of proportionality and the duty
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme                   to have regard for the welfare of officials;
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-211/98)
                                                                   Ð breach of the interest of the service and the principle
                        (1999/C 71/60)                                 of     good    management        practice    and    sound
                                                                       administration;
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far
An action against the Commission of the European                       as facts of the type alleged have never resulted in a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      decision to suspend an official, which is limited to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December                    much more serious facts;
1998 by Claude Willeme, residing in Brussels, represented
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Ð breach of the rights of the defence.
offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of
                                                                   Lines Limited against the Commission of the European
    16 December 1998 to suspend the applicant from his
                                                                                Communities
    duties and to withhold a sum equal to one half of his
    basic salary from his remuneration with immediate                                     (Case T-212/98)
    effect;
                                                                                (1999/C 71/61)
Ð order the European Commission to pay damages by
    way of compensation for the material and the                                  (Language of the case: English)
    non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful
    nature of the decision of 16 December 1998; those              An action against the Commission of the European
    damages are provisionally assessed at EUR 31 001;              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited, represented by
                                                                   John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                   Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, and Alexandre R. M.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Nourry, Solicitor, and Marleen J. J. Van Kerckhove of
                                                                   Clifford Chance with an address for service in
The contested decision was adopted in the context of               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant           Goethe.
when, following an investigation carried out by the Unit
on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration of the defendant institution learned that his
wife had been awarded an employment contract with a
contractor of the Commission and had been paid for six             (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
months notwithstanding the fact that she only worked for               proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
two weeks. The appointing authority considered that it                 Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
was apparent from the information gathered by the                      Agreement);
UCLAF that the applicant's wife had been awarded that
contract because of the post held by the applicant at the
Security Office in Brussels. It therefore decided to initiate      (b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce
the disciplinary proceedings and to adopt the contested                such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the
decision.                                                              Court in all the circumstances;


title: Case T-17/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2008 — Miguel Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Navarro López

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2008 — Miguel Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Navarro López
   (Case T-17/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/94)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-474/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Umbach v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a contract concluded under the TACIS programme — Request for access concerning a dispute between the applicant and the Commission before a Belgian civil court — Partial refusal of access — Request for access based on the principles deriving from the EU Treaty — Overriding public interest)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Umbach v Commission
   (Case T-474/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a contract concluded under the TACIS programme - Request for access concerning a dispute between the applicant and the Commission before a Belgian civil court - Partial refusal of access - Request for access based on the principles deriving from the EU Treaty - Overriding public interest)
   2010/C 328/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dieter C. Umbach (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008 refusing the applicant access to certain data in documents concerning a contract headed ‘TACIS Service Contract No 98.0414’ relating to assistance in the drafting of an administrative code for the Russian Federation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Dieter C. Umbach to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case F-61/13: Action brought on 25 June 2013 — ZZ and Others v European Investment Bank

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/29

         Action brought on 25 June 2013 — ZZ and Others v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-61/13)
   2013/C 274/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the individual decisions to award a bonus to the applications in accordance with a new performance scheme and to annul the decisions to grant the bonuses to the applicants misapplying of the new performance scheme and the subsequent request to order the EIB to pay damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decisions to apply a bonus to the applicants in so far as those decisions constitute the application of a new performance system;

               —

               alternatively, annul the decisions to grant the bonus to 2 applicants in so far as those decisions misapply the new performance system;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages;

               —

               in the event that the defendant does not produce documents on its own initiative, call on the defendant to produce them under the measure of organisation of procedure;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-337/17: Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Air France-KLM v Commission

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/32

         Action brought on 30 May 2017 — Air France-KLM v Commission
   (Case T-337/17)
   (2017/C 256/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul in full, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, Case COMP.39258 — Airfreight, insofar as it concerns Air France-KLM, as well as the grounds supporting its operative part, on the basis of the applicant’s first plea in law;

               —

               in the alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment in full of Decision C(2017) 1742 final on the basis of the first plea in law:

                           —

                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that the finding of a single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM is based on evidence submitted by Lufthansa in the context of its application for immunity under the 2002 Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s second plea in law;

                           —

                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions exclude from the scope of the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM airlines referred to in the grounds of the decision as being involved in the practices relating to that infringement, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with its third plea in law;

                           —

                           annul the first paragraph of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b) and Article 1(3)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions declare that the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM includes inbound freight traffic entering the EEA (inbound EEA traffic), and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s fourth plea in law;

               —

               in the further alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment of Decision C(2017) 1742 on the basis of the second, third or fourth pleas in law:

                           —

                           annul the first paragraph 1 of Article 1, Article 1(1)(b), Article 1(2)(b), Article 1(3)(b) and Article 1(4)(b) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that those provisions declare that the refusal to commission freight forwarders amounts to a separate aspect of the single and continuous infringement attributed to Air France-KLM, and the grounds supporting those provisions, Article 3(b) and (d) of the decision in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, and Article 4 of the decision, and consequently reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the amount of those fines, in accordance with the applicant’s fifth plea in law;

               —

               in the even further alternative, should the General Court not order the annulment of Decision C(2017) 1742 on the basis of the fifth plea in law:

                           —

                           annul Article 3(b) and (d) of Decision C(2017) 1742 final, in that in that it imposes on Air France-KLM two fines in a total amount of EUR 307 360 000, on the ground that the calculation of those fines includes tariffs and 50 % of the inbound EEA revenue of the Air France company and of KLM (in accordance with the applicant’s sixth plea in law), overestimates the seriousness of the infringement attributed to Air France-KLM (in accordance with the applicant’s seventh plea in law), proceeds on the basis of an incorrect duration of the infringement attributed to the Air France company (in accordance with the applicant’s eighth plea in law) and applies an insufficient fine reduction in respect of the regulatory regimes (in accordance with the applicant’s ninth plea in law), as well as the grounds supporting those provisions, and reduce, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, those fines to an appropriate amount;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes nine pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the responsibility for the practices of Air France and KLM was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that responsibility for Air France’s practices as of 15 September 2004 and for those of KLM as of 5 May 2004 was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that responsibility for Air France’s practices between 7 December 1999 and 15 September 2004 was incorrectly attributed to Air France-KLM;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the 2002 Leniency Notice and of the principles of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and non-discrimination between Air France-KLM and Lufthansa affecting the admissibility of the evidence submitted in the context of Lufthansa’s application for immunity;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and protection against arbitrary intervention on the part of the Commission as a result of the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in the practices concerned. This plea comprises two parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the argument that the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in those practices is vitiated by a failure to state reasons;

                           —

                           Second part, based on the argument that the exclusion from the operative part of the decision of airlines which had been involved in those practices is vitiated by an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the principle of protection against arbitrary intervention on the part of the Commission;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the inbound EEA traffic in the single and continuous infringement is contrary to the rules imposing limits on the Commission’s territorial powers. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the fact that the practices relating to inbound EEA traffic were not implemented within the EEA;

                           —

                           Second part: the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of serious effects within the EEA linked to the practices relating to inbound EEA traffic;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging contradictory reasoning and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the finding that the refusal to pay commission to freight forwarders amounts to a separate aspect of the single and continuous infringement. This plea comprises two parts:

                           —

                           First part, according to which that finding is vitiated by contradictory reasoning;

                           —

                           Second part, according to which that finding is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an error in the sales values taken into account to calculate the fine imposed on Air France-KLM; this plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the inclusion of tariffs in the sales value is based on contradictory reasoning, several errors of law and a manifest error of assessment;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the inclusion of 50 % of the inbound EEA income in the sales values infringes the 2006 Guidelines on the calculation of fines and the ne bis in idem principle;

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging an erroneous assessment of the severity of the infringement; this plea comprises two parts:

                           —

                           First part, based on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices is based on several manifest errors of assessment and infringement of the principles of proportionality of penalties and equal treatment;

                           —

                           Second part, based on the argument that the overestimation of the seriousness of the practices stems from the inclusion in the scope of the infringement of contacts relating to practices implemented outside the EEA, in breach of the rules governing the Commission’s territorial powers;

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging an error in the calculation of the duration of the infringement imputed to Air France and taken into account for the calculation of the fine imposed on Air France-KLM;

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and inadequacy of the 15 % reduction granted by the Commission in respect of the regulatory regimes.


title: Case T-310/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council (Dumping — Imports of oxalic acid originating in India and China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Community industry — Determination of injury — Article 9(4), Article 14(1) and Article 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to make representations — Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council
   (Case T-310/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of oxalic acid originating in India and China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Community industry - Determination of injury - Article 9(4), Article 14(1) and Article 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to make representations - Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   (2015/C 221/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (Yuan Ping City, Xin Zhou, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by N. Chesaites, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 106, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd, other than the costs incurred by the latter as a result of the European Commission’s intervention;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd as a result of the European Commission’s intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-33/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 — AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 — AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-33/08)
   (2008/C 92/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AGRANA Zucker GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 must be included in the assessment of the temporary restructuring amount?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations derived from Article 34 EC?


title: Case C-91/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the European Commission against the Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/10

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the European Commission against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-91/05)
   (2005/C 115/19)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the European Commission, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Johan Enegren acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP (1)

               2.

               declare illegal and hence inapplicable Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP (2), in particular Title II thereof.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission is seeking the annulment for lack of competence under Article 230, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty of Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons. The Council took this Decision under Title V of the Treaty on European Union, whereas Article 11(3) of the Cotonou agreement covers actions inter alia against the spread of small arms and light weapons. Moreover, the Commission had concluded pursuant to Article 10(2) of Annex 1V of the Cotonou agreement a Regional Indicative Programme for West Africa with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), which gives support to a regional policy of conflict prevention and good governance, and announces support in particular for the moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons in West Africa. Thus the impugned CFSP decision is in infringement of Article 47 TEU, since it affects Community powers in the field of development aid.
   In addition, the Commission is seeking a declaration of illegality under Article 241 EC Treaty of Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002, and in particular Title II thereof, on the same basis and for the same reasons. Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP is an act of a general legislative nature on which the CFSP Decision is based, of which the annulment for lack of competence is sought. Hence that Joint Action, and more specifically Title II thereof should be declared inapplicable in the present case.

      (1)  Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons, OJ L 359, 04.12.2004, p. 65.

      (2)  Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union's contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP, OJ L 191, 19.07.2002, p. 1.


title: Case T-388/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/17

         Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-388/14)
   2014/C 329/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1853/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  417

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.


title: Case C-140/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen, of 11 March2004 in proceedings between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies andthe Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1) the Kingdomof Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/41

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen, of 11 March 2004 in proceedings between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1) the Kingdom of Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies
   (Case C-140/04)
   (2004/C 106/71)
   The Hof van Beroep Antwerp te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp), on the basis of its decision of 11 March 2004, received at the Court’s Registry on 16 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1) the Kingdom of Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies, refers to the Court of Justice for the European Communities for a preliminary ruling the following questions:

               1.

               May the person who must present the goods to customs (Article 40 of the Community Customs Code in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.1)) be deemed to be the person required to fulfil the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods (final indent of Article 203(3) of the Community Customs Code), in which connection he or his representative must lodge the summary declaration (Article 44(2) thereof) and must sign it (Article 183(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)), and must make the goods available to the customs authorities for as long as they have not been released from the means of transport in which they are located when the goods are brought into the Community and until such time as those goods have received a custom designation?

               2.

               May the person required to fulfil the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods (final indent of Article 203(3) of the Community Customs Code) be deemed to be the person who, after release of the goods, has them in his possession in order to move them or store them, in consequence of which, under Article 51(2) and 53(2) of the Community Customs Code, he is deemed to be the holder of the goods and is consequently required, under Article 184(2) of the implementing provisions, to re-present the goods at the request of the customs authorities?

               3.

               If the first and second questions are answered affirmatively, may the persons referred to in those questions consequently be deemed to be joint and several customs debtors, it being understood that the persons mentioned in the first and second questions are different persons (in this case the representative of the shipping line by which the goods were brought into the Community and the freight forwarder responsible for the storage and removal of the goods at the unloading place or quayside indicated by the customs authorities?

               4.

               If the third question is answered affirmatively does the person mentioned in the first question remain the debtor until the goods are given a customs designation, regardless of the fact that after release of the goods from the means of transport by which they entered the Community they were stored with or removed by the person mentioned in the second question?

               5.

               If the third question is answered in the negative must the person mentioned in the first question be regarded as remaining a customs debtor until the goods are received by the person mentioned in the second question and does the person mentioned in the second question become a debtor only from the time when he arranges the storage and removal of the goods?

               6.

               If the first question is answered affirmatively and the second question negatively must the person mentioned in the first question continue to be regarded as the debtor until the time when the goods are received by the person mentioned in the second question or until the time when the goods have been given a customs designation?


title: Case T-550/16: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Dickmanns v EUIPO

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/32

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
   (Case T-550/16) (1)

   (2017/C 357/43)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-65/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-564/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/64

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)
   (Case T-564/08)
   (2009/C 44/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Monoscoop BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 September 2008, in Case R 816/2008-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO’ (Application for registration No 5.769.013) for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-471/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Ibercaja Banco and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/46

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Ibercaja Banco and Others v Commission
   (Case T-471/14)
   2014/C 261/73
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ibercaja Banco, SA (Zaragoza, Spain); Banco Grupo Cajatres SA (Zaragoza); and Naviera Bósforo, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-577/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/26

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)
   (Case T-577/13) (1)

   2014/C 329/42
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-512/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 13 November 2012 — Octapharma France v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 13 November 2012 — Octapharma France v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé
   (Case C-512/12)
   2013/C 26/61
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Octapharma France

      Defendants: Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is plasma from whole blood which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process and which is intended for transfusions capable of having the provisions of Directive 2001/83 (1) [as amended by Directive 2004/27
                   (2)] and those of Directive 2002/98 (3) applied to it simultaneously, as regards not only its collection and testing, but also its processing, storage and distribution; for that purpose may the rule laid down in Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83 be interpreted as meaning that the Community legislation on medicinal products alone applies to a product which falls simultaneously within the scope of another piece of Community legislation only where that latter is less strict than the legislation on medicinal products?

               2.

               Must Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98 be interpreted, where necessary in the light of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as allowing the maintenance or introduction of national provisions which, because they submit plasma which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process to a stricter scheme than that to which medicinal products are subject, provide justification for setting aside the application of all or part of the provisions of Directive 2001/83, in particular those which make the marketing of medicinal products subject to the sole condition of the prior grant of a marketing authorisation and, in the affirmative, under what conditions and to what extent?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)

      (2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34)

      (3)  Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30)


title: Case T-69/02: Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/28               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
In 1997 the applicant submitted to the Netherlands customs             Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
authorities an application for remission of import duties              proportionality. It claims that the duty charged is in any event
pursuant to Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 (1), since            disproportionate to any negligence on its part.
the applicant itself had not been involved in the fraud and had,
moreover, taken all possible steps to prevent the fraud.
According to the applicant, it was not to blame, in connection         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
with those shipments, for any fraudulent acts or manifest                  establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
negligence. The Netherlands authorities passed that application            19.10.1992, p. 1).
on to the Commission in accordance with Article 905 of                 (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Regulation No 2454/93 (2). By the contested decision, the                  down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
Commission refused the remission of the customs duties.                    (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                           (OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1).
                                                                       Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 907 of            Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission
Regulation No 2454/93. According to the applicant, the time-                            of the European Communities
limit of nine months for issuing the decision was wrongly
extended three times. The applicant further claims that its
rights of defence have been infringed. It states that it was not                                 (Case T-69/02)
kept informed of the course of the procedure, and in particular
of the questions put by the Commission to the Netherlands
authorities. Furthermore, the applicant was initially denied                                    (2002/C 118/45)
access to the complete file for the purposes of submitting its
observations. However, the Commission calculated the time                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
which elapsed in that connection as an extension of time. Yet,
according to the applicant, the time-limit for taking a decision
could not be extended whilst the applicant remained unaware
of the questions put and was denied complete access to the
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
file.
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 12 March 2002 by the Organiza-
                                                                       ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                       office is in Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
                                                                       Garcia-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillém Carrau, law-
                                                                       yers.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further pleads infringement of the principle of
legal certainty. It argues that, pursuant to Article 907 of            —     declare the present action admissible;
Regulation No 2454/93, a decision in its favour must be
deemed to have been taken after nine months had elapsed,               —     annul the measure which is the subject-matter of the
since it was not aware of any extension of the time-limit                    present action by which the European Commission has
provided for in that article.                                                reduced the quantities in respect of which OPTUC is
                                                                             eligible for compensation, namely, Article 2(2) of and
                                                                             the annex to Regulation Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 2496/2001 of 19 December 2001 providing for
                                                                             compensation to producer organisations for tuna deliver-
                                                                             ed to the processing industry between 1 January and
                                                                             31 March 2001 (1),
                                                                       —     make any other appropriate order requiring the Com-
The applicant further contests the Commission’s conclusion                   mission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC and,
that it was manifestly negligent. It argues that it did not itself           in particular, order the European Commission to re-
infringe any rules of law and acted in accordance with                       examine the matter;
established usages and international practice. There was no
causal link between the involvement of the applicant and the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
fraud which was perpetrated.                                                 pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —      Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;
In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny               —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-142/01 (3).
                                                                         The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
                                                                         in the production and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                         sectors of distribution of electricity, industrial control and
(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.                                                automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.                                         Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
                                                                         production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.
                                                                         The commission declared the operation incompatible with
                                                                         the common market. The applicant brought an action for
                                                                         annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
                                                                         in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
                                                                         the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric                    (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
  S.A. against Commission of the European Communities                    decision is the subject of the present proceedings.
                          (Case T-77/02)
                                                                         The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
                        (2002/C 118/46)
                                                                         declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
                                                                         market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
                                                                         present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
                                                                         of the present decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider                       decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-             of property.
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
                                                                         first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
—     Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the         to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
      Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring                 also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
      undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —                   examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
      Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council         the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                       breach of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-56/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden

text:
4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/29
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                 was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case               Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a Española
  of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden                       para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
                                                                        Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
                         (Case C-56/02)                                 Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.
                        (2002/C 109/49)
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the contested judgment of the Court of First
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the                   as
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:
                                                                              fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
                                                                              reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation                       case back to the Court of First Instance;
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
L 302, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those        Pleas in law and main arguments
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council                The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community                  Instance is flawed for the following reasons:
Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
                                                                              to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                             on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.                                             pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
                                                                              judgment on this point;
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
                                                                              its rejection of the Appellant’s argument that its
                                                                              implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
                                                                              which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a                              December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;
Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     —     the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between                              test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                    —     even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
                                                                              long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
                                                                              long as some concertation continues to exist between
                        (Case C-57/02 P)
                                                                              undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
                                                                              ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
                        (2002/C 109/50)                                       that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
                                                                              level;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December                 —     the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                      rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between                       disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-              market is compared to that of other addressees of the
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,                          decision;


title: Case T-206/14: Action brought on 27 March 2014  — Hüpeden v Council and Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/33

         Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Hüpeden v Council and Commission
   (Case T-206/14)
   2014/C 212/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hüpeden & Co. (GmbH & Co.) KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 1 18  762,57 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks compensation on account of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008, (1) which was declared invalid by judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10 GLS.
   The applicant submits that although the anti-dumping duties wrongly collected on the basis of that regulation have been refunded by the national customs authorities, it suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that it was compelled by the withdrawal of liquidity to obtain additional bank loans at the usual market rates of interest, as well as short-term fixed-rate loans. The applicant therefore seeks reimbursement of the difference between the interest it paid on its bank loans and the lower amount of interest that it would have had to pay if no anti-dumping duties had been collected. The applicant submits in that regard that, by unlawfully adopting Regulation No 1355/2008, the defendants committed a sufficiently serious breach of their duty of due care and proper administration, resulting in a loss to the applicant for which compensation is not otherwise available, since there is no provision under the relevant national rules on import duties for interest to be paid on the amount of any difference in favour of the person liable to pay import duties, from the time of payment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35).


title: Case T-465/12: Action brought on 19 October 2012 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/32

         Action brought on 19 October 2012 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-465/12)
   2012/C 379/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: AGC Glass Europe (Brussels, Belgium); AGC Automotive Europe (Fleurus, Belgium); AGC France (Boussois, France); AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl (Cuneo, Italy); AGC Glass UK Ltd (Northhampton, United Kingdom); and AGC Glass Germany GmbH (Wegberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, J. Blockx and P. Niggemann, lawyers, and S. Ryan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Decision of the European Commission of 6 August 2012 on the rejection, pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, of a request for confidential treatment submitted by the applicants in relation to Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Take any other measures that the General Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the hearing officer breached Article 8 of the terms of reference of the hearing officer (1) and the duty to give reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by misconstruing the scope of his competence and considering that he was unable to review the applicants’ submissions as to the breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of equal treatment, and the right to good administration which would be entailed by the publication of the contested information in the Commission’s decision in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that in permitting the Commission to publish the contested information, the hearing officer breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations, based on the Commission’s leniency notices (2) and past practices regarding the protection of information submitted in a leniency application, that the information which they submitted in the context of their cooperation with the Commission would not be disclosed to the public to the extent possible.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the hearing officer infringed the principle of equal treatment by permitting the Commission to take the same approach regarding the publication of a certain category of information with respect to all of the addressees of the Commission’s decision in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass, despite the fact that the applicants are in a different position from the other addressees of the decision vis-à-vis publication of this information due to their status as the sole leniency applicant in the Carglass case.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that hearing officer infringes the applicants’ right to good administration under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by permitting the Commission to adopt an arbitrary policy with respect to the publication of a certain category of information in its decisions relating to cartel proceedings.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the hearing officer breaches Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) and the Commission’s notice on access to file (4), on the basis that these provisions prevent the Commission from granting members of the public access to documents submitted to the Commission by leniency applicants. By permitting the Commission to publish information which was contained in these documents in the non-confidential version of its decision in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass, the hearing officer allows the Commission to circumvent these provisions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the hearing officer breaches the obligation of professional secrecy under Article 339 TFEU and Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (5) by considering that the contested information is not confidential information and can be disclosed by the Commission. The hearing officer commits manifest errors of assessment as to the application of the criteria for the confidentiality of information in the case law of the Court, and fails to apply the balancing of interests required by the case law in his assessment.

      (1)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p.29)

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines or alternatively reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p.3); Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17)

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

      (4)  Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ 2005 C 325, p.7).

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p.1).


title: Case T-159/11: Action brought on 10 March 2011 — Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/33

         Action brought on 10 March 2011 — Marszałkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO)
   (Case T-159/11)
   2011/C 145/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Marek Marszałkowski (Sokolniki, Poland) (represented by: C. Sadkowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG (Blankenhain, Germany)

      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 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) refusing registration of the mark ‘Marko Walichnowy’ as a Community trade mark in so far as it relates to goods in Class 29: meat, products made from meat and poultry meat, including pies, tripe, sausage with cabbage, meat preserves and products made from meat and vegetables, including bigos, poultry (including packaged poultry), meatballs in a vegetable sauce;

               —

               alternatively, amend the contested decision by taking account of the sound basis for registration of the Community trade mark ‘Marko Walichnowy’ in so far as it relates to the aforementioned goods in Class 29;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the applicant’s representation in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘Marko Walichnowy’ for goods in Class 29 — Application No 007161541

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ for certain goods in Class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: dismissal of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for the following goods in Class 29: meat, products made from meat and poultry meat, including pies, tripe, sausage with cabbage, meat preserves and products made from meat and vegetables, including bigos, poultry (including packaged poultry), meatballs in a vegetable sauce

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in so far as the contested decision establishes a similarity between the trade marks and the possibility that consumers might be misled

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


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2001 in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent): Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D'Hondt (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of procuring employment for professional sportsmen)

text:
C 245/2                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              1.9.2001
Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of                       of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
seafarers (OJ 1998 L 172, p. 1), the Grand Duchy of                          Article 49 EC), Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                        Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that directive — the Court                   composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of                       D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                       has made an order on 19 June 2001, in which it rules:
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2001, in which it:                                                           Public employment procurement offices are subject to the prohibition
                                                                             in Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), provided that
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed    the application of that provision does not frustrate the specific
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,            function entrusted to them. A Member State which prohibits any
      including any penalties, necessary to comply with Council              activity of mediation and intervention between the seeking and
      Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending Directive                   offering of employment which is not carried on by those offices
      94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers, the            infringes Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC) if it
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations         creates a situation in which public employment procurement offices
      under Article 2 of that directive;                                     are necessarily put in a position where they contravene the provisions
                                                                             of Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case in particular where the
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                 following conditions are met:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   —      the public employment procurement offices are manifestly
                                                                                unable to satisfy demand on the labour market for the kind of
                                                                                activities concerned;
                                                                             —      the actual carrying on of employment procurement activities by
                                                                                private agencies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in
                                                                                force of provisions of law which prohibit those activities on pain
                                                                                of criminal and administrative penalties;
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             —      the procurement activities in question are to extend to the
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                           nationals or the territory of other Member States.
                          of 19 June 2001
                                                                             (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent):
Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Anke-
ren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs
         and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D’Hondt (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of
     procuring employment for professional sportsmen)                        Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                             Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
                                                                             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2001/C 245/03)                                    European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
                                                                             GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Case C-213/01 P)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 245/04)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01: references to the Court                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court                  by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
of Appeal, Ghent), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the                  European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
proceedings pending before that court between Stéphane                       GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Monnier and Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren and                           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV and Pascal Jacobs, and                      European Communities on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Govan Sports NV and Dannie D’Hondt — on the interpretation                   Co. KG, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.


title: Case T-232/12: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola (ULTRA CHOCO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ULTRA CHOCO — Earlier national word mark ultra choco — Unregistered earlier mark ULTRA CHOCO used in the course of trade in the European Union and in Bulgaria — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay appeal fee within the time-limit — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the appeal deemed not to have been filed)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola (ULTRA CHOCO)
   (Case T-232/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ULTRA CHOCO - Earlier national word mark ultra choco - Unregistered earlier mark ULTRA CHOCO used in the course of trade in the European Union and in Bulgaria - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay appeal fee within the time-limit - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the appeal deemed not to have been filed)
   2014/C 61/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: E. Miller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Agroekola EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2012 (Case R 87/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd and Agroekola EOOD.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Napier Brown & Company Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-207/98)

text:
C 48/30                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Ð the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the                  Ð in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4, of the
     fullness of its cooperation would be taken into                        Decision or reduce the fine; and
     account in the level of fine imposed;
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
Ð the Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC
     Treaty by failing to state adequate reasons for its view
     that the applicant did not maintain continuous and                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     complete       cooperation     with     the    Commission
     throughout the investigation; and
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission
                                                                       Decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
Ð in the absence of adequate explicit reasoning, the                   pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).
     implicit reasons for the Commission's view that the
     applicant did not maintain continuous and complete
     cooperation with the Commission throughout the                    The applicant challenges the contested decision on the
     investigation appears to be the alleged retraction by             following grounds:
     the applicant of statements made earlier in the
     proceeding. The applicant made no retractions of
     earlier statements; what the Commission apparently                Ð The Decision is based on an incorrect and incomplete
     regards as retractions' were in fact no more than                     assessment of the facts and vitiated by manifest error
     corrections or clarifications of the Commission's                      of law.
     interpretation of the facts; the applicant was entitled
     to make these clarifications, and could not thereby be
     considered not to be cooperating with the
     Commission.                                                       Ð By failing to address fully the submissions and
                                                                            evidence of British Sugar and of the other addressees
                                                                            of the Decision and by failing to adduce evidence
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of                 which supports its contentions regarding the
    fines in Cartel Cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996).                            application of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                            Commission has infringed essential procedural
                                                                            requirements.
                                                                       Ð The Decision fails to exhibit reasoning of the requisite
                                                                            standard under Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by British Sugar plc
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  (1) See also Cases T-202/98 Tate & Lyle v. Commission and
                                                                           T-207/98 Napier Brown & Company Ltd. v. Commission.
                         (Case T-204/98)
                          (1999/C 48/63)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Napier Brown
                                                                       & Company Limited against the Commission of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                          European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December                                           (Case T-207/98)
1998 by British Sugar plc, represented by Thomas Sharpe
                                                                                (1999/C 48/64)
QC, Daniel Jowell, Rae Lindsay and Alex Nourry, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Ð annul in its entirety Commission Decision of                         1998 by Napier Brown & Company Limited, represented
     14 October 1998 in Case IV7F-3/33.708-British Sugar               by Diana Guy, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     plc relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt of Bonn & Schmitt, 7
     Treaty;                                                           Val St Croix.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Removal from the register of Case T-357/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/65)
Ð annul the Commission Decision of 14 October 1998
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (in Case IV/F-3/33.310) in so far as such                                 (Language of the case: English)
     Decision relates to Napier Brown;
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
Ð cancel, or reduce the amount of, the fine imposed on                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Napier Brown under the Decision;                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Case T-357/93: W. J. Wyness and Sons v. Council of the
                                                                       European Union and Commission of the European
Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the                       Communities.
     proceedings;
                                                                       (1) OJ C 189, 13.7.1993.
Ð order that the Commission reimburse the applicant for
     any expenses incurred in providing security for the
     payment of the fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-525/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/66)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).                                          (Language of the case: English)
The application contests the Commission's finding that the
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
applicant has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
                                                                       removal from the register of Case T-525/93: Patrick
the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                       Griffin v. Council of the European Union and Commission
sugar in Great Britain', on the basis that the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities.
has failed to adduce any, or any sufficient, evidence of an
anti-competitive object' which can be imputed to the
applicant, and has failed to show any collusive behaviour              (1) OJ C 328, 4.12.1993.
in the market.
The Commission has also misapplied the law to the facts
and relied upon inconsistent reasoning in coming to its
decision.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-554/93 (1)
The applicant also submits that the Commission has                                            (1999/C 48/67)
misused its powers under Article 15 of Regulation No 17,
has misapplied its own Guidelines (2) on the method of
setting fines and is in breach of general principles of                               (Language of the case: English)
Community law, especially of the general principle of
proportionality, in fixing the level of fine imposed on the
applicant. The fine of ECU 1 800 000 is wholly unjustified             By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
and excessive in all the circumstances. For this reason the            Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
applicant submits, as an additional ground, that the fine              Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
should be cancelled or, at least, reduced.                             removal from the register of Case T-554/93: Alfred
                                                                       Thomas Edward Saint and Christopher Murray v. Council
(1) See also Cases T-202/98 (Tate & Lyle v. Commission) and            of the European Union and Commission of the European
    T-204/98 (British Sugar v. Commission).                            Communities.
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
    ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).                             (1) OJ C 338, 15.12.1993.


title: Case C-117/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/30

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-117/07)
   (2007/C 95/56)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 29 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 91, p. 13.