title: Case T-366/00: Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 61/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
                                                                         Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                                         (Case T-364/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Luigia Dricot                      Weyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-363/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
                          (2001/C 61/31)                                       board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
                                                                               the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
                                                                               decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October
                                                                               2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
                   (Language of the case: French)                              ted by the applicant;
                                                                         —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia                             for material and non-material damage;
Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-            The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                     forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during the
      course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for              Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.
      material and non-material damage;                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-366/00)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.,
                                                                         a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy Lever
                                                                         QC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor
                                                                         of Clifford Chance, London.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     That the contested decision violates the principle of the
                                                                               legitimate expectation, inasmuch as for many years prior
                                                                               to 1997, the Commission would have known about the
—     annul the contested decision, alternatively Article 2                    existence and contents of French Law pursuant to which
      thereof; and                                                             the aid in question has been granted.
                                                                         —     That the Commission committed manifest error of calcu-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   lation.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 83, of 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The current application arises out of the Commission Decision
of 12 July 2000 (C(2000)2183) addressed to the French
Republic concerning two aids said to have been granted to the
applicant by the French Public Authorities. The two aids in
question consist of:                                                     Action brought on 30 November 2000 by General Motors
                                                                         Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     That the local authorities arranged for the transfer to the
      applicant of a certain and, namely 49 hectares of                                          (Case T-368/00)
      68 hectares site in the industrial zone of La Saussaye, and
      a factory on that site at a preferential price.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/34)
—     That the applicant benefited from a preferential tariff
      in respect of effluent treatment charges (redevances                                  (Language of the case: English)
      d’assainissement) levied by the City of Orléans.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of their conclusions, the applicant submits:                  European Communities on 30 November 2000 by General
                                                                         Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V., companies
                                                                         registered in the Netherlands, represented by Dirk Vander-
—     That insofar as Article 2 of the contested decision orders         meersch, Robbert Snelders and Steven Allcock of Cleary,
      the French Republic to recover the aid in question, it             Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels.
      infringes Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No
      659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules
      for the application of Article 93 [now 88] of the EEC              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Treaty (1), which provides for a 10 year limitation period
      in respect of the Commission’s power to recover aid.               —     annul Commission Decision No. C(2000) 2707 of
                                                                               20 September 2000 (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel),
                                                                               addressed to General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel
—     That the administrative procedure infringed essential                    Nederland B.V.; alternatively
      procedural requirements and the applicant’s rights of
      defence and that the recovery order requires the French
                                                                         —     to cancel or reduce the fine imposed;
      Republic to act in breach of the European Convention of
      Human Rights. In this connection, Scott relies in particu-
      lar on the fact that there was never any fair trial of the         —     to order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
      issues on which its liability to ‘repay’ the alleged aid was
      determined, let alone any fair trial in which the applicant
      could participate and in which the rights of defence were          Pleas in law and main arguments
      respected. On the contrary, the Commission treated the
      administrative procedure as being essentially a procedure
      between itself and the French Republic.                            The contested decision imposes a fine of 43 million euros on
                                                                         the applicants for an alleged infringement of Article 81(1) EC.
                                                                         The Commission concludes that Opel Nederland B.V. entered
—     That the contested decision results in unequal treatment           into agreements with Opel dealers in the Netherlands aimed at
      of equal situations, in relation to cases that in pari materia     restricting or prohibiting export sales of Opel vehicles to end-
      with that of Scott.                                                users and Opel dealers located in other Member States.


title: Case T-523/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Sani — Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)
   (Case T-523/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Sani - Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 253/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2012 (Case R 236/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aujan Industries Co. (S J C) and Global-Invest Bartosz Turek.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-57/00: Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/37
— infringes Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, as well as           Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
    the principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of
    the principle of the hierarchy of rules;                                              the European Communities
— breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expec-                                      (Case T-58/00)
    tations; and
                                                                                (2000/C 149/71)
— is vitiated by misuse of powers and failure to comply with
    proper procedure.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
                                                                        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen, a non-profit-making associ-
Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompani-                    ation under Belgian law, established in Brussels, and two other
et and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the                       applicants, represented by J. van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar,
Council of the European Union and the Commission of                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                 the European Communities                               F. Brouxel.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (Case T-57/00)
                                                                        — annul Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                        (2000/C 149/70)                                      1999 in so far as, whether or not in conjunction with the
                                                                             White Paper, infringements are to have no retroactive
                                                                             effect and/or Article 4 failed to include abuses attributable
                  (Language of the case: English)                            to economic dependence;
                                                                        — in the alternative: set aside the consultation procedure and
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             order that this be repeated in a transparent manner, and
Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                             that a statement of position be requested in regard to the
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             abolition of the retroactive effects of automatic nullity
on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet, Stockholm and
                                                                             provided for in Article 81(2) EC, and the consequences of
Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, Arsta (Sweden) represented
                                                                             the modernisation programme for the situation of small
by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
                                                                             and medium-sized undertakings and consumers, as well as
                                                                             economic dependence in general and economic depen-
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  dence by virtue of cumulative effect in particular;
— require the Commission and the Council, pursuant to                   — order the Commission to pay costs.
    Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 235
    EC and 288 EC), to pay the applicants damages in respect
    of the loss suffered by them by reason of the unlawful              Pleas in law and main arguments
    adoption of Council Decision 94/800 and Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 478/95.                                          The Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen is an associ-
                                                                        ation which safeguards the interests of the regional associations
                                                                        of garage owners and their members.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        This application seeks the annulment of Commission Regu-
The applicants are part of the Saba Group of companies and              lation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
are engaged in the purchase, import and sale of bananas in              application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of
Scandinavia. They were entitled to Category A banana import             vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
licences and imported bananas from Colombia and Costa Rica.             p. 21).
Their application concerns the damage suffered by them as a
result of having to purchase export licences in the period 1995
                                                                        This regulation forms part of a European Commission pro-
to 1998 in order to enable them to exercise their rights to             gramme for the modernisation of the application of the
obtain import licences.
                                                                        Community rules on competition. Within the context of this
                                                                        programme, the applicants also refer to the Green Paper on
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants            vertical restraints on competition (COM(96) 721 def.), the
are similar to those put forward in Case T-56/00.                       White Paper on modernisation of the competition rules (OJ
                                                                        1999 C 132), Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 amending
                                                                        Regulation No 17 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5), and the Guidelines
                                                                        on Vertical Restraints (OJ 1999 C 270, p. 12).


title: Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by SCA Holding Ltd against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-327/94 between SCA Holding Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-297/98 P)

text:
C 299/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.9.98
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal               Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by SCA Holding Ltd
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting            against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kirchberg.                                                           T-327/94 (1) between SCA Holding Ltd and the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
The Commission of the European Communities claims                                          (Case C-297/98 P)
that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 299/35)
Ð declare that, by maintaining in force Articles L 310-8
    and A 310-1 of the Code des Assurances (Insurance                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
    Code), according to which:                                       1998 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
                                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
    (a) insurance and capitalisation undertakings are
                                                                     Case T-327/94 between SCA Holding Ltd and the
           required, when marketing a standard form
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities, was brought
           insurance contract for the first time in France, to
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
           notify it to the Minister responsible for economic
                                                                     on 29 July 1998 by SCA Holding Ltd, whose registered
           and financial affairs in accordance with the
                                                                     office is at SCA Packaging House, 543 New Hythe Lane,
           conditions laid down by order issued by that
                                                                     Larkfield, Aylesford, Kent ME20 7PE, United Kingdom,
           Minister;
                                                                     represented by John Pheasant and Nicholas Bromfield,
    (b) the information referred to in the first paragraph           solicitors of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, of
           of Article L 310-8 is to take the form of a note          Lovell White Durrant, with an address for service in
           drawn up in the French language containing the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
           information mentioned in the Annex to that                Goethe.
           Article,
                                                                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the Treaty establishing the European                       (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
    Community, under Articles 6(3), 29 and 39 of Council                   of the European Communities in Case T-327/94, SCA
    Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the                             Holding Ltd v. Commission of the European
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   Communities, of 14 May 1998;
    provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
    assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and
    88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and          (b) annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC
    under Articles 5(3), 29 and 39 of Council Directive                    of 13 July 1994, as amended by Commission
    92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination                      Decision C(94) 2135 of 26 July 1994, relating to a
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions                     proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
    relating to direct life assurance and amending                         33.833 Ð Cartonboard) (2), in so far as it concerns
    Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life                       the appellant, or, in the alternative, annul or
    assurance Directive) (2),                                              substantially reduce the fine imposed on the appellant
                                                                           at Article 3 thereof;
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (c)   order that the Commission should bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the provisions of Articles
L 310-8 and A 310-1 of the French Insurance Code are
                                                                     The legal pleas of SCA Holding Ltd fall into two
not in accordance with the obligations imposed on the
                                                                     categories, those which relate to the issue of the proper
Member States by the third life assurance and non-life
                                                                     addressee of the Cartonboard Decision and those which
assurance Directives, in that they require the systematic
                                                                     relate to the fines imposed.
notification of the general conditions of contracts which
insurance undertakings wish to market for the first time
on French territory. That practice is tantamount to a                Addressee of the Decision:
hidden regime of systematic control. French law does not
require the prior approval of general and special policy             The Court of First Instance's findings on this question
conditions, of scales of premiums or of forms, but it does           raise the following issues of law:
provide for the systematic notification of general
conditions      governing      contracts   which     insurance       (a) whether the Court of First Instance was right to
undertakings wish to market for the first time on French                   conclude that no question of succession arose in the
territory.                                                                 circumstances of this case,
(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1.                                       (b) whether the Court of First Instance was right to
                                                                           consider that the Commission had a choice of
                                                                           addressee, and, if so
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 299/23
(c)  whether the Court of First Instance was right to              (c)  even if the Court of First Instance was right to hold
     conclude that, in exercise of that choice, the                     that the Commission had a choice as to whether to
     Commission was entitled to address the Cartonboard                 address the Cartonboard Decision to SCA Holding
     Decision to SCA Holding Ltd.                                       Ltd (or to another legal entity), it was wrong not to
                                                                        take the existence of this choice into account in
                                                                        reviewing the level of fines imposed on SCA Holding
In summary, SCA Holding Ltd's position on these issues is               Ltd. To make SCA Holding Ltd exclusively
as follows:                                                             responsible for the infringement when the
                                                                        Cartonboard Decision could also have been addressed
                                                                        to, and fines imposed (in whole or in part) on, legal
(a) an issue of succession arises in circumstances where                entities belonging to other corporate groups was
     an infringement is committed by an undertaking                     unfair, disproportionate and did not serve to achieve
     which, notwithstanding one or more changes of                      any deterrent effect.
     ownership during or after the period of infringement,
     maintains functional and economic continuity
     throughout the period of infringement and up until            (1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994, p. 15.
     the date of the Decision, continues to exist in its           (2) OJ L 243, 19.9.1994, p. 1.
     essential form at the date of the Decision and has            (3) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87.
     legal personality at the date of the Decision. The
     Court of First Instance's finding that there was no
     issue of succession in this case is based on deficient
     reasoning and is contrary to legal principle and the
     jurisprudence of the European Courts;
(b) The Court of First Instance erred in law in                    Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla Sales OY
     concluding that the Commission was entitled to                (formerly Finnish Board Mills Association Ð Finnboard)
     choose, as between entities belonging to different            against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the
     corporate groups, which entity should be the                  Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of
     addressee of the Cartonboard Decision;                        First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-338/94 Finnish Board Mills Association Ð Finnboard
                                                                       and the Commission of the European Communities
(c)  the Court of First Instance's consideration of the
                                                                                (Case C-298/98 P)
     question whether the Commission exercised that
     choice correctly was inadequate. Even if (which is                                       (98/C 299/36)
     denied) the Commission was entitled to choose which
     entity from different corporate groups to make the
     addressee of the Cartonboard Decision, the Court of
     First Instance erred in law in finding that the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
     Commission's choice could not validly be called into          1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the
     question.                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                   Case T-338/94 between Finnish Board Mills Association
                                                                   Ð Finnboard and the Commission of the European
Fines:                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-
                                                                   Serla Sales OY (formerly Finnish Board Mills Association
If the Court considers that the Court of First Instance did
                                                                   Ð Finnboard), represented by Hans Hellmann, Am
not err in holding that SCA Holding Ltd was the correct
                                                                   Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933 Cologne, and Hans-Joachim
(or a correct) address of the Cartonboard Decision, SCA
                                                                   Hellmann LL.M., Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz, Otto-Beck-
Holding Ltd submits that the Court of First Instance erred
                                                                   Straûe 42, D-68165 Mannheim, Rechtsanwälte, with an
in the application of its unlimited jurisdiction to review
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
the fine imposed on it by the Commission, contrary to
                                                                   Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, B.P. 1107, L-1011
Article 172 of the Treaty and Article 17 of Council
                                                                   Luxembourg.
Regulation No 17 (3). SCA Holding Ltd makes three pleas
in this part of its appeal:
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
(a) the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding
     that the position adopted by SCA Holding Ltd during
     the Commission's administrative procedure did not
     justify a reduction of the fine imposed on it;                1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of 14 May 1998 in Case T-338/94 Finnboard v.
                                                                       Commission, save and except paragraph 1 of the
(b) the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding                operative part thereof allowing the application in
     that the defective reasoning of the Decision in                   regard to the declaration of nullity of Article 2(1) to
     relation to the fines imposed did not justify the                 (4) of the Decision, and give final judgment in the case
     annulment or reduction of SCA Holding Ltd's fine;                 as follows.


title: Case T-251/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Public storage of rice — Force majeure — Processed fruit and vegetable products — Assistance to the needy — Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Flat-rate corrections — Time-limit of 24 months)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-251/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Public storage of rice - Force majeure - Processed fruit and vegetable products - Assistance to the needy - Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector - Flat-rate corrections - Time-limit of 24 months)
   (2006/C 190/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables and public storage
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-580/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-82/08: Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/3

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-82/08: Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl v European Commission
   (Case C-580/12 P)
   2013/C 55/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Guardian Industries Corp., Guardian Europe Sàrl (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat, H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt, C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment in so far as the General Court upheld the Decision’s exclusion of captive sales in the calculation of the fines imposed on the Decision’s other addressees thereby discriminating against Guardian;

               —

               accordingly reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the amount of the Decision’s fine imposed on the Appellants by an amount corresponding to 37 % of the fine;

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission, in so far as the General Court held the Commission’s letter of 10 February 2012 to be admissible;

               —

               accordingly, declare the Commission’s letter to be inadmissible and strike it from the record;

               —

               further reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the Decision’s fine imposed on the Appellants by an amount not inferior to 25 % of the original fine in order to remedy the General Court’s failure to grant effective judicial review within a reasonable time under Article 47 of the Charter; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs relating to this Appeal and the procedure before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, the Judgment breaches the principle of equal treatment by upholding the Decision’s exclusion of captive sales when calculating the fines imposed on the Decision’s other addressees and failing to rectify the resulting discrimination against Guardian. This ignored a consistent body of case-law requiring that captive sales be treated the same as external sales when calculating fines, lest this result in an unfair advantage to integrated producers. The General Court’s reasoning — that the Decision related only to ‘sales of flat glass to independent customers’ — cannot justify the discrimination against Guardian.

               Second, the Judgment breaches the General Court’s rules on time limits and fundamental principles of rights of the defence and equality of arms by declaring admissible the Commission’s letter of 10 February 2012. In that letter, sent one working day before the hearing, the Commission purported to introduce into the record new information that was not already before the Court, even though the Commission had had many earlier opportunities to do so.

               Third, more than three years and five months passed between the closure of the written procedure and the General Court’s decision to open the oral procedure. This delay infringed the Appellants’ right under Article 47 of the Charter to an effective remedy and hearing within a reasonable time. It exceeds what this Court has considered unreasonable in the past, and cannot be explained by any factors such as complexity or the volume of evidence before the General Court. On the contrary, this was a straightforward case with Guardian the only company to lodge an application to annul the Decision. The evidentiary record was limited to a handful of short documents and statements, all in the language of the procedure. Guardian did all it could to simplify and speed up the General Court’s handling of its appeal, including by foregoing a second round of written pleadings despite the importance of its appeal and — given the infringement’s extremely short duration — the unprecedented fine imposed by the Commission.


title: Case C-273/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2013 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 27 February 2013 in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/8

         Appeal brought on 17 May 2013 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 27 February 2013 in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case C-273/13 P)
   2013/C 215/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 27 February 2013 by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-241/10 Republic of Poland v European Commission;

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 (notified under document No C(2010) 1317) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63 of 12.03.2010, p. 7), in so far as that decision excludes from Community financing the amounts of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland sets out the following grounds contesting the judgment under appeal:

               1.

               Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that that provision requires the introduction of a fully vectorised LPIS-GIS system (system for identifying parcels of agricultural land on the basis of a computer-assisted geographical information system) or of an equivalent system, even though a full vectorisation is not necessary for the purpose of satisfying the system standards envisaged in that provision.

               2.

               Ground of appeal alleging a misinterpretation of Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 by reason of the General Court’s assumption that the penalties for an intentional breach are to be imposed even if the intentional nature of the recipient’s actions has not been conclusively established.

               3.

               Ground of appeal alleging inadequate grounds for the judgment under appeal. In the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain which of the substantive and formal requirements arising under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 had in fact not been met. The General Court also failed to establish to what extent the possibility of establishing the intentional nature of the action by way of judicial proceedings may have led to an incompatibility of the payment system introduced by the Polish authorities with the objectives of the common agricultural policy. Furthermore, in the view of the Republic of Poland, the General Court failed to explain how the calculations carried out by the Polish authorities as to the actual risks faced by the fund were inconsistent.

               4.

               Ground of appeal alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the right to equitable proceedings by reason of the failure to take account of evidence adduced by the Republic of Poland and by reason of the fact that the General Court went beyond the subject-matter of the dispute. The General Court failed to appraise the evidence and explanations relating to the system for determining eligibility for area aid submitted by the Republic of Poland and did not explain the standard for the scope of the investigation in Opole Province (Województwo opolskie). Furthermore, the General Court extended its examination beyond the scope of what had constituted the subject-matter of the Commission’s complaints and beyond the basis on which the Commission had adopted the contested decision.


title: Case C-269/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc. (Appeal — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission — Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/35

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc.
   (Case C-269/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Anti-doping legislation - Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)
   2013/C 225/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard and C. Aguet, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), World Anti-doping Agency (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Cooper, solicitor, N. Chesaites, barrister), ATP Tour, Inc.

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, rejecting for lack of Community interest a complaint concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-doping Agency, the ATP Tour Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Errors of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Interest in bringing proceedings ceased to exist during the proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 1995 in Case C-7/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Lubor Gaal (Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - 'Child' definition)

text:
24 . 6 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 159/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              OPINION 2/92 OF THE COURT                             2 , the Community and the Member States share joint
                    of 24 March 1995 ( l )                                competence to participate in that decision.
(Competence of the Community or one ofits institutions to
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 255 , 2 . 10 . 1992 .
participate in the Third Revised Decision of the OECD on
                      national treatment)
                        ( 95/C 159/01 )
By a request made on 4 September 1 992 under the second
subparagraph of Article 228 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty, the
Kingdom of Belgium sought the opinion of the Court on the                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
competence of the Community or one of its institutions to                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
take part in the Third Revised Decision on international
treatment of the Council of the Organization for Economic                                       of 4 May 1995
Cooperation and Development; more specifically, the Court           in Case C-7/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
was requested to give its opinion on the following                  from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Landesamt für
questions :                                                         Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Lubor
                                                                                Gaal 1 1 )
— Is the dual legal basis ( Articles 57 and 113 ) proposed by        (Régulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Artide 12 — 'Child'
     the Commission for the Council Decision on the                                                 définition)
     Community's participation in the Third Decision
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/02 )
     justified ?
— If the reply to the first question is in the negative, which                     (Language of the case: German)
     would be the correct legal basis ?
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— Does the Community's competence to participate in the                       published in the European Court Reports)
     Third Decision exclude participation by the Member
     States or is 'mixed' participation justified ?
                                                                    In Case C-7/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    the EEC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
The Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President,         ( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann                 the proceedings pending before that court between the
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur),            Landesamt fiir Ausbildungsfôrderung Nordrhein
C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray             Westfalen and Lubor Gaal, with the Oberbundesanwalt
and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; after hearing F. G. Jacobs,            beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervener — on the
First Advocate-General, C. O. Lenz, G. Tesauro, G.                  interpretation of Article 12 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Cosmas, P. Léger and B. Elmer, Advocates-General, gave the          No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
following opinion:                                                  for workers within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                     Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
 1 , the Community is competent to participate in the Third          Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini,
      Revised Decision of the OECD;                                  C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities,
the Registrar, has given a j udgment on 4 May 1 995, in which                 the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
it rules :                                                                    under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December
                                                                              1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public
                                                                              supply contracts, as last amended by Directive
The definition of 'child' for the purposes of Article 12 of                   88/29 S/EEC of 22 March 1988;
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community is not subject to the same conditions of age or               2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
dependency as are the rights governed by Article 10 (1 ) and
Article 11 of that Regulation.
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                      ( 3 ) OJ No L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 4 May 1995
                            of 4 May 1995
                                                                        in Case C-218/94 : Commission of the European
in     Case    C-79/94 : Commission of the              European                    Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( x )
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
                                                                        (Failure ofa Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
(Failure ofa Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                           91/263/EEC — Failure to transpose)
 77/62/EEC — Framework agreement for the exclusive
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/04 )
supply ofdressing material for use in Greek hospitals and by
                           the Greek army)
                             ( 95/C 159/03 )                                             (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-218/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agents : Anders Jessen and Jean-Francis
                                                                        Pasquier ) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder) —
In Case C-79/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                        application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
Communities (Agent: X. A. Yataganas ) v. Hellenic Republic
                                                                        laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
(Agents : V. Kontolaimos and E. -M. Mamouna ) —
                                                                        comply with Council Directive 91 /263/EEC of 29 April
application for a declaration that, by concluding a
                                                                        1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
framework agreement for the exclusive supply by six Greek
textile undertakings of dressing material for use in Greek              States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
hospitals and by the Greek army and by failing to publish
                                                                        including the mutual recognition of their conformity ( 2 ), the
the relevant notice in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                        Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Communities, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                        under Article 17 of the above Directive, and, in the
obligations under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of
                                                                        alternative , a declaration that, by failing to inform the
21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award
                                                                        Commission without -delay of the measures adopted to that
of public supply contracts ( 2 ), as last amended by Directive
88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth                   end, the Kingdom of Belgium has in any event failed to fulfil
                                                                        its obligations under those provisions — the Court ( Sixth
Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.             Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
                                                                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, G.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                        Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
                                                                        Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 1995 , in which
it :
                                                                        judgment on 4 May 1 995 , in which it:
1 . declares that, by concluding a framework agreement for              1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
      the exclusive supply by six Greek textile undertakings of               specified the laws, regulations and administrative
      dressing material for use in Greek hospitals and by the                 measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
      Greek army and by failing to publish the relevant notice                91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of


title: Case C-464/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Request for access to Commission documents — Refusal — Action for annulment — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation before the EU Courts — Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant — Action manifestly inadmissible — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/6

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) v European Commission
   (Case C-464/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Request for access to Commission documents - Refusal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation before the EU Courts - Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant - Action manifestly inadmissible - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 195/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-288/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/39

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)
   (Case T-288/17)
   (2017/C 231/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Parrot Drones (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Parrot SKYCONTROLLER’ — Application for registration No 13 107 842

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 457/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1) (b) and 8 (5) Regulation No 207/2009.


8.4.2000              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 102/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-25/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-346/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 102/33)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/34)
By order of 21 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 25 January 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-25/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-346/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2000 in Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacitados v Commission of the European Communities (Refusal to initiate infringement proceedings — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 259/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
Council of the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi, G. Hout-               1.   Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98 are joined for the purposes of the
tuin and G.-L. Ramos Ruano) and Commission of the European                      further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants,                2.   The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
consisting of the costs of restructuring or liquidating their
businesses, which were incurred as a result of the establish-              3.   The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
ment, with effect from 1 January 1993, of the internal market                   the Council.
in accordance with the Single European Act, and of the
consequent discontinuance of the activities which they had                 4.   The Commission is to bear its own costs.
hitherto carried on as customs agents in the field of intra-
Community trade — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi                (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
15 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
2.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
      the Council.
3.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                                            of 14 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacita-
                                                                               dos v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Refusal to initiate infringement proceedings — Action for
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 annulment — Inadmissibility)
                         of 26 June 2000                                                             (2000/C 259/40)
in Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacitados,
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-                    established in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez,
     toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                      of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the Chambers of Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard
                         (2000/C 259/39)                                   de la Pétrusse, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes Real) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        19 October 1999 not to institute proceedings against the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain for a declaration of infringement of
In Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl, established                Community law — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Brescia (Italy), and 21 others, and Carlo Chiappe, residing at          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
Leghorn (Italy), and 11 others, represented by G. Leone, of the            N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Milan Bar, and M. Clough, solicitor advocate, with an address              14 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
398 Route d’Esch, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
M.C. Giorgi, G. Houttuin and P. Cossu) and Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications               2.   There is no need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to
for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the                       intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and the United
applicants as a result of the establishment, with effect from                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of               3.   The applicant is to pay the costs.
the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 26 June 2000, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case T-330/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/76

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Novartis v OHIM (BLUE SOFT)
   (Case T-330/06)
   (2006/C 326/156)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by N. Hebeis, 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 14 September 2006 in Case R 270/2006-1;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BLUE SOFT’ for goods in Class 9 (application No 3 007 846)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: There is no absolute ground for refusal and therefore the mark for which registration is sought is capable of being protected. The sign as a whole is not purely descriptive and distinctive character is also present.


title: Case T-200/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Gfi PSF v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/34

         Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Gfi PSF v Commission
   (Case T-200/16)
   (2016/C 222/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gfi PSF Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 2 March 2016, the decision of 16 March 2016 and the decision of 22 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of European public contract No 10573 ‘Development, maintenance, evolution and support services for Internet sites based on SharePoint technology and drafting services for publication on the Internet’, published by notice of 17 December 2015, for Lot No 1 with a total value of EUR 2 005 704 over four years;

               —

               order the Office to pay the applicant compensation for damage suffered in the amount of EUR 415 000;

               —

               order the Office to pay the expenses incurred by the applicant and by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and an infringement of Article 111(4)(b) of Regulation No 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1).


title: Order of Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-105/01, Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia (SLIM Sicilia) v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-financed by the ERDF — Refusal to extend the time limit for the submission of an application for final payment — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                         of 10 June 2002                                    ties (Agents: R. Tricot and M. Moretto) — application for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
in Case T-200/00, Glenryck UK Ltd and Others v Com-                         2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with the post-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                           clearance recovery of import duties in respect of canned tuna
                                                                            from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(Common customs tariff — Remission of import duties —                       composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
                Case not proceeding to judgment)                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 June 2002,
                                                                            the operative part of which is as follows:
                         (2002/C 202/42)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall bear all the costs.
In Case T-200/00, Glenryck UK Ltd, established in Henley-
on-Thames (United Kingdom), Maple Leaf Foods UK Ltd,                        (1) OJ 2000 C 372.
established in London, Martin Mathews & Co Ltd, established
in Cheshunt (United Kingdom), and North Country Quality
Foods Ltd, established in Salford (United Kingdom), represent-
ed by M. Cornwell-Kelly, Solicitor, and E. Mc Nicholas and
S. Saltissi, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:
R. Tricot and M. Shotter) — application for annulment of
Commission Decision No C(2000) 1078 of 2 May 2000 (REM
14/99), of Commission Decision No C(2000) 1083 of 2 May
2000 (REM 16/99), of Commission Decision No C(2000)                                   ORDER OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1081 of 8 May 2000 (REM 15/99) and of Commission
Decision No C(2000) 1178 of 15 May 2000 (REM 43/99)                                                    of 6 June 2002
rejecting the requests for the remission of customs duties in
respect of the importation by the applicants of canned tuna
from Turkey, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)                   in Case T-105/01, Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia
composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,                (SLIM Sicilia) v Commission of the European Communi-
Judges, Registrar; H. Jung, has made an order on 10 June 2002                                               ties (1)
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-
1.    There is no need to adjudicate in the present action.
                                                                            financed by the ERDF — Refusal to extend the time limit for
2.    The Commission shall pay the costs in their entirety.                 the submission of an application for final payment — Action
                                                                                for annulment — Admissibility)
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/44)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-105/01, Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia (SLIM
                         of 14 June 2002                                    Sicilia), established in Syracuse (Italy), represented by N. Saitta,
                                                                            F. Saitta, M. Siragusa, F.M. Moretti and C. Lanciani, lawyers,
in Case T-327/00: ICAT Food SpA v Commission of the                         v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Van
                   European Communities (1)                                 Vliet, assisted by M. Moretto) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the decision of the Commission contained in a letter sent to
(Common customs tariff — Failure to proceed to post-                        the Italian Government on 12 December 2000 refusing to
clearance recovery of import duties — No need to adjudicate)                extend the time limit for the submission of the application for
                                                                            final payment and closure of the file concerning assistance
                         (2002/C 202/43)                                    granted under the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                            No 840503013/001 in respect of the project for the methana-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         tion of the municipality of Syracuse — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Second Chamber) composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                            President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges, Registrar;
In Case T-327/00: ICAT Food SpA, established in Milan (Italy),              H. Jung, has made an order on 6 June 2002 the operative part
represented by R. Delfino, M. Merola, F. Santaniello and                    of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.8.2002
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 29 May 2002
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.01.
                                                                            in Case T-21/02: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Commission Decision 97/612/EC
                                                                            — State aid — Agricultural sector — Time-limits for
                                                                                bringing proceedings — Time-bar — Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2002/C 202/46)
                           of 7 June 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case T-290/01: Land Brandenburg v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
        (Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)                      In Case T-21/02: Giuseppe Atzeni, residing at Serdiana (Italy),
                                                                            and Others, represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli, lawyers,
                                                                            v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Tri-
                          (2002/C 202/45)                                   antafyllou and V. Di Bucci) — application, principally, for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April
                                                                            1997 on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the
                   (Language of the case: German)                           agriculture sector (OJ 1997 L 248, p. 27), alternatively for
                                                                            partial annulment of that decision to the extent that it provides
                                                                            for repayment of the aid granted — the Court of First Instance
                                                                            (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
In Case T-290/01: Land Brandenburg, represented by the                      N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Land Management,                   order on 29 May 2002, the operative part of which is as
Potsdam (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and T. Masing,                  follows:
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur
Hausen and M. Núñez-Müllers) — application for annulment
of the decision of the Commission contained in order for                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
recovery No 3240305411 of 13 September 2001 — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,             2.    There is no need to rule on the Council’s application for leave to
Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2002, the operative part of                    intervene.
which is as follows:
                                                                            3.    The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.                       of the Commission, including those relating to the procedure
                                                                                for interim measures.
2.    The Commission shall bear the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.


title: Case C-33/03: Action brought on 28 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 83/6                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesterets                        Action brought on 28 January 2003 by the Commission
Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg by order of that Court of                            of the European Communities against the United
22 January 2003 in the case of I/S Fini H against Skatte-                           Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                              ministeriet
                                                                                (Case C-33/03)
                           (Case C-32/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/11)
                           (2003/C 83/10)
                                                                             An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                             Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                             the European Communities on 28 January 2003 by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Commission of the European Communities, represented by
European Communities by order of the Højesterets Anke- og                    R. Lyal, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Committee of the                      Luxembourg.
Supreme Court) of 22 January 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 28 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of I/S Fini H against Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Taxation) on the following questions:
                                                                             (1) declare that by granting taxable persons the right to
                                                                                deduct value added tax in respect of certain supplies of
                                                                                road fuel to non-taxable persons, contrary to Articles 17
                                                                                and 18 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977
Q ues ti o n 1
                                                                                (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
                                                                                system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1),
Can a person be regarded as independently carrying on an                           the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(1)-(3) of the                    under the EC Treaty;
Sixth VAT Directive ( 1) in a situation in which the person
concerned originally entered into a lease agreement as part of               (2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
an independent economic activity but has now ceased that
actual activity, even though the lease continues to exist for a
particular period as a result of a non-termination clause, and
in which, after the actual activity ceases, no transactions                  Pleas in law and main arguments
subject to VAT are conducted by application of the lease for
the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing
basis.                                                                       By virtue of the VAT (Input Tax) (Person Supplied) Order 1991
                                                                             [hereinafter, ‘the disputed Order’], a taxable person is granted
                                                                             the right to deduct VAT in respect of supplies of road fuel to a
                                                                             non-taxable person, where the taxable person reimburses to
                                                                             the latter the cost of the fuel. Although the language of the
Q ues ti o n 2                                                               Order is general, it appears that the right of deduction is
                                                                             granted to employers in respect of purchases of road fuel by
                                                                             their employees.
Does the question whether or not the person concerned
actively seeks, during the remaining part of the period of non-
terminability, either to utilise the commercial lease to conduct             In the Commission’s view, the provisions of the Order are
transactions subject to VAT for the purpose of obtaining                     contrary to the Sixth VAT Directive in three respects and in
income therefrom on a continuing basis or to dispose thereof                 relation to two provisions. First of all, the disputed Order
have any bearing on the answer to Question 1 and does the                    grants a right of deduction in respect of supplies to another,
length of the period of non-terminability or the remaining part              non-taxable, person, contrary to Article 17(2)(a). Secondly, the
thereof likewise have any bearing?                                           measure does not state that deduction can be granted only in
                                                                             respect of goods and services used for the purposes of taxable
                                                                             transactions; it thus fails to comply with the condition to that
                                                                             effect set out in Article 17(2). Finally, deduction is granted in
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             the absence of any VAT invoice, contrary to Article 18(1)(a).
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 31/11
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order on 24 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                                of 19 October 2001
1.    The application is dismissed.                                       in Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Action for failure to act — Communication under Article 6
                                                                          of Regulation No 2542/98 — Taking of position bringing
                                                                                infringement to an end — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau, residing in France, represented
                                                                          by M. Fauconnet, lawyer, with an address for service in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties (Agent: E. Gippini Fournier) — application for a declaration
                     of 19 September 2001                                 that the Commission refrained, contrary to the Treaty, from
                                                                          ruling on a complaint concerning alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81 EC — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  19 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                          (2002/C 31/22)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA, having its registered office in
Darmstadt, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — action                                              INSTANCE
brought against Decision R 299/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 concerning the                                     of 21 September 2001
registration of the term ‘OSTEOCALCIUM’ as a Community
trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                                      Communities
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 September
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision
                                                                                to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/24)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.
                                                                          In Case T-138/01 R: F, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                          P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Court of Auditors of the European Communities