title: Case C-213/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Customs union — Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 — Common Customs Tariff — Recovery of import customs duties — Imports of processed foodstuffs — Preserved mushrooms — CN subheading 2003 10 30 — Levy of an additional amount — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Barsoum Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-213/09) (1)

   (Customs union - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Common Customs Tariff - Recovery of import customs duties - Imports of processed foodstuffs - Preserved mushrooms - CN subheading 2003 10 30 - Levy of an additional amount - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 30/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barsoum Chabo

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) as regards the additional amount charged on the import of products falling under subheading 2003 1030 000 — Preserved mushrooms — Principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the amount of the specific customs duty of EUR 222 per 100 kilograms of net drained weight, which applies under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff and is charged on imports of preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus coming under subheading 2003 10 30 of the Combined Nomenclature in that annex and effected outside the quota opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1864/2004 of 26 October 2004 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms imported from third countries, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1995/2005 of 7 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-40/09: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Community word mark VOGUE CAFÉ — Earlier national figurative marks Vogue and VOGUE studio and application for the Community figurative mark VOGUE — Genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Selecciones Americanas (VOGUE CAFÉ)
   (Case T-40/09) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Community word mark VOGUE CAFÉ - Earlier national figurative marks Vogue and VOGUE studio and application for the Community figurative mark VOGUE - Genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 136/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially R. Pethke and D. Botis, and subsequently I. Harrington, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Selecciones Americanas, SA (Sitges, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2008 (Case R 0280/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Selecciones Americanas, SA and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2008 (Case R 0280/2008-4), in so far as it concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark applied for, VOGUE CAFÉ, and the Spanish figurative mark VOGUE studio registered under number 2529728;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case F-50/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2012 — Buxton v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Award of merit points — Staff report — Part-time work — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2012 — Buxton v Parliament
   (Case F-50/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Award of merit points - Staff report - Part-time work - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 184/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant:
      Dawn Cheryl Buxton (Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant:
      European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and N.B. Rasmussen, agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to grant the applicant only one merit point for the 2009 reports procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Buxton to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 36.


title: Case C-552/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2012 in Case T-215/10 Greece v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2012 in Case T-215/10 Greece v Commission

   (Case C-552/12 P)
   2013/C 32/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and E. Leftheriotou, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should admit this appeal and set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court, for the reasons specifically set out, and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               As regards the corrections in the cotton sector and specifically as regards the compatibility of the scheme to support the production of cotton with the Integrated Administrative Control System (IACS), the Hellenic Republic relies on the following grounds of appeal:

                           —

                           infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 6, 7 and 17 of Regulation No 1051/2001 and of Article 10(1) and 2(c) and (e) of Regulation No 1591/2001 — insufficient statement of reasons — infringement of the principle of proportionality;

                           —

                           infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of Article 17 of Regulation No 1051/2001 — insufficient and/or contradictory statement of reasons.

               —

               As regards the environmental measures, the following grounds of appeal are relied on:

                           —

                           infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of the guidelines and of the principle of proportionality — inadequate statement of reasons;

                           —

                           infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of Article 7(4) of Regulation 1051/01 and Article 1 of each of Regulations 1123/09, 903/05 and 871/06 — insufficient statement of reasons;

                           —

                           infringement of the procedural guarantees of protection — insufficient statement of reasons.

               —

               As concerns the corrections in the area of rural development, the Hellenic Republic claims:

                           —

                           incorrect interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 8 (1) and (2) of Regulation 1663/95 and, in addition, insufficient and/or contradictory statement of reasons.

               —

               In relation to the corrections in the area of aid to the most deprived, the Hellenic Republic relies on the following grounds of appeal:

                           —

                           incorrect interpretation and application of Article 3(2) of Regulation 3149/92 — insufficient and/or contradictory statement of reasons — infringement of the principle of proportionality — incorrect interpretation and application of the rules of procedural equality and equal allocation of the burden of proof — defects in the procedure before the General Court which are prejudicial to the interests of the Hellenic Republic.


title: Case F -110/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of  18 May 2006  — Eerola v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2006 — Eerola v Commission
   (Case F -110/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/67)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 May 1998 in Case C-404/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Loan - Documentary credit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - 'Directly concerned')

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 209/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 May 1998                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-404/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of                                        of 7 May 1998
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-145/97: Commission of the European
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the                              Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð                                (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Obligation of prior
            Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')                             communication under Directive 83/189/EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 209/22)
                         (98/C 209/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-145/97: Commission of the European
In Case C-404/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading             Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-
as Richco Commodities Ltd, a company incorporated                    Francis Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan
under Bermudian law, established at Hamilton (Bermuda),              Devadder) Ð application for a declaration that, by
represented by M. M. Slotboom, P. V. F. Bos and J. G. A.             adopting the Decree of 9 November 1993 of the
van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                Government of the Region of Metropolitan Brussels
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,                concerning standards of quality and safety in furnished
11 Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the                   accommodation without first communicating it to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission in draft form, the Kingdom of Belgium has
(Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-509/93                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council
Richco v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1181, seeking to                  Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 procedure for the provision of information in the field
proceedings being the Commission of the European                     of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109 of
Communities (Agents: B. J. Drijber and N. Khan) Ð the                26.4.1983, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,             182/EEC of 22 March 1988 (OJ L 81 of 26.3.1988, p. 75)
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)                   Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,            Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,           Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, G. Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,            Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Loutermann-Hubeau,                      judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it:
Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May
1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares that by adopting the Decree of 9 November
                                                                          1993 of the Government of the Region of
1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  Metropolitan Brussels concerning standards of quality
     24 September 1996 in Case T-509/93 Richco v.                         and safety in furnished accommodation without first
     Commission inasmuch as it dismisses as inadmissible                  communicating it to the Commission in draft form,
     the action for annulment brought by Glencore Grain                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     Ltd, formerly trading as Richco Commodities Ltd.                     obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)
                                                                          of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983
                                                                          laying down a procedure for the provision of
                                                                          information in the field of technical standards and
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for                regulations, as amended by Council Directive (88/182/
     judgment on the substance.                                           EEC) of 22 March 1988.
3. Reserves costs.                                                   2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                             (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.


title: Case C-495/15: Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic: supported by: Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-495/15) (1)

   (2017/C 063/30)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  13 December 2005  in Case C-446/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Corporation tax — Groups of companies — Tax relief — Profits of parent companies — Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary — Allowed — Deduction of losses incurred in another Member State by a non-resident subsidiary — Not included)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 December 2005
   in Case C-446/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Corporation tax - Groups of companies - Tax relief - Profits of parent companies - Deduction of losses incurred by a resident subsidiary - Allowed - Deduction of losses incurred in another Member State by a non-resident subsidiary - Not included)
   (2006/C 36/09)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-446/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 16 July 2003, received at the Court on 22 October 2003, in the proceedings between Marks & Spencer plc and David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resident parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary. However, it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.


title: Case T-559/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GIOVANNI GALLI — Earlier Community word mark GIOVANNI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)
   (Case T-559/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GIOVANNI GALLI - Earlier Community word mark GIOVANNI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname))
   (2015/C 236/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (Rancho Dominguez, California, United States) (represented by: J. van den Berg and M. Meddens-Bakker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2013 (Case R 1189/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. and Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-39/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission
   (Case T-39/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2011/C 340/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Transcatab SpA (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Amato, subsequently by V. Di Bucci, and lastly by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION (i) for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy); (ii) for a reduction in the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

               3.

               Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-79/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Directive 2004/80/EC — Compensation to victims of crime — Liability of a legal person — Compensation in criminal proceedings)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others
   (Case C-79/11) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Directive 2004/80/EC - Compensation to victims of crime - Liability of a legal person - Compensation in criminal proceedings)
   2012/C 287/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Firenze

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Filippo Ricci, Vito Piglionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Criminal liability of legal persons — Right of a victim of a criminal act to be compensated, in the context of criminal proceedings, by a legal person indirectly liable for the harm suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, under a system governing the liability of legal persons such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude a situation in which the victim of a criminal act is not entitled to seek compensation for the harm directly caused by that act in the course of criminal proceedings from the legal person who committed an administrative offence.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-280/03: Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Economic Interest Grouping Lior and Others

text:
C 213/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Furthermore, it is evident that the difficulty in proving that the        the Italian civil service, periods of comparable work completed
misconduct of the State or public bodies was culpably or                  in the civil service of a Member State other than Italy must be
maliciously intended could, in practice, result in actions for            taken into consideration by the Italian authorities in the same
damages brought by persons harmed by an infringement being                way as experience gained in the Italian civil service.
delayed and, in all likelihood, unsuccessful. Such a situation
undermines the effectiveness of Article 1(1) of the directive,
namely that effective and rapid remedies must be available in             The Commission submits that the current practice in Italy is
the case of infringements of Community law in the field of                not to take into consideration time spent in comparable
public procurement or national rules implementing that law.               occupations in the civil service of other Member States. That
                                                                          practice on the part of the Ministry of Education is inconsistent
                                                                          with the aforesaid laws.
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968 p. 2.
Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of                       Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  of the European Communities against the European
                                                                                Economic Interest Grouping Lior and Others
                          (Case C-278/03)                                                           (Case C-280/03)
                          (2003/C 213/24)                                                           (2003/C 213/25)
                                                                          An action against the European Economic Interest Grouping
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             Lior, Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare Bvba, Società Politecnica
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 June                   Italiana (SPI) Sarl, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       SA, Managium Sprl, Pi Due Sprl, C.A.R.M.E.N. e.v., Energy
represented by M.-J. Jonczy, acting as Agent.                             Research Group/University College Dublin, ORCA-Organic
                                                                          Reclamation and Composting Ass. AIBS, R.P.A. Spa, Aris
                                                                          Hellas Ltd, and against Lior International n.v., was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent,
—      find that, by failing to take into account professional            assisted by M. Bra, avocat, with an address for service in
       experience gained by European Union citizens in the civil          Luxembourg.
       service of a Member State other than Italy for the
       purposes of their participation in competitions for the
       selection of staff to teach at Italian state schools, the          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
       Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        the Court should:
       Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Council Regulation
       No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of move-                  —     declare the present action admissible and well-founded in
       ment for workers within the Community (1);                               its entirety;
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       —     As the main plea: hold the Lior Grouping and the
                                                                                defendants jointly liable to pay the Commission the sum
                                                                                of the debit notes issued for all the disputed contracts,
                                                                                namely the total sum of EUR 142 818,86, plus interest
                                                                                under Article 94 of Commission Regulation No 3418/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 93 ( 1) until 31 December 2002, and under Article 86(2)(b)
                                                                                of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) as from
                                                                                1 January 2003, dating from the day after the maturity
                                                                                date of each of the debit notes issued, until the day of
Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 1612/68 must                       full payment of the principal debt and interest, more
be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of entering                    particularly:
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 213/15
     1.  In respect of the Biogaz (SME 3-96), Brochure                             respect of the period from 1 March 2003 until
         bioclimatique (DIS 162-95) and Biomasse                                   15 May 2003 to the sum of EUR 577,25, plus an
         (SME 1539-97) contracts: the sum of EUR 6 156,75,                         additional sum of EUR 7,60 per day of additional
         as set out in debit note no 3240310250, plus                              delay, as from 16 May 2003, until full payment.
         interest thereon, which calculated as above, amounts
         in respect of the period from 1 March 2002 until
         15 May 2003 to the sum of EUR 403,34, plus an                —      In the alternative, should the Court consider, contrary
         additional sum of EUR 1,15 per day of additional                    to the applicant’s submission, that the defendant Lior
         delay, as from 16 May 2003, until full payment.                     International n.v. acquired the status of assignee of the
                                                                             Transport, Photovoltaïc and Agores contracts, order that
                                                                             company jointly with the other defendants to pay the
                                                                             sum of EUR 72 000 plus interest as from the due date of
                                                                             the recovery orders issued for those contracts.
     2.  In respect of the Biomasse (SME 1539-97) contract:
         the sum of EUR 16 325,11, as set out in supplemen-
         tary debit note no 3240402601, plus interest
                                                                      —      In any event: order the Grouping and the defendants to
         thereon, which calculated as above, amounts in
                                                                             pay the costs of the Commission, including its legal costs.
         respect of the period from 1 July 2002 until 15 May
         2003 to the sum of EUR 798,48, plus an additional
         sum of EUR 3,02 per day of additional delay, as
         from 16 May 2003, until full payment.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
     3.  In respect of the Windenery (SME 792-96) contract:
         the sum of EUR 3 980, as set out in debit note
         no 3240309853, plus interest thereon, which calcu-
         lated as above, amounts in respect of the period             In accordance with the stipulations in the subsidy contracts
         from 16 January 2002 until 15 May 2003 to the                relating to projects selected by the Commission in connection
         sum of EUR 282,23, plus an additional sum of                 with certain Community programmes, particularly in the area
         EUR 0,74 per day of additional delay, as from                of renewable energy sources, the Commission contributes to
         16 May 2003, until full payment.                             the projects contracted up to a percentage of the total eligible
                                                                      costs stipulated in each of the individual contracts. The
                                                                      Commission makes an a posteriori financial contribution of a
                                                                      percentage of the eligible costs actually incurred and duly
                                                                      documented for the carrying out of certain selected projects.
     4.  In respect of the Photovoltaïc (SME 1883-98) con-            Where the financial contribution due for an individual project
         tract: the sum of EUR 36 000, as set out in debit            is less than the subsidies paid for that project, the contracting
         note no 3240304674, plus interest thereon, which             parties must immediately repay the surplus to the Commission.
         calculated as above, amounts in respect of the period
         from 1 September 2001 until 15 May 2003 to the
         sum of EUR 3 947,18, plus an additional sum of
         EUR 7,89 per day of additional delay, as from
         16 May 2003, until full payment.                             The defendants are jointly liable to the Commission for the
                                                                      repayment, as to principal and interest, of the excess amounts
                                                                      received, both in their capacity as contracting parties and in
                                                                      their capacity as members of a European Economic Interest
                                                                      Grouping.
     5.  In respect of the Road Transport Industry (DIS 1178-
         97) contract: the sum of EUR 36 000, as set out in
         debit note no 3240304787, plus interest thereon,
         which, calculated as above, amounts in respect of            (1 ) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of
         the period from 1 September 2001 until 15 May                     9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
         2003 to the sum of EUR 3 947,18, plus an                          tation of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (OJ No
         additional sum of EUR 7,89 per day of additional                  L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1).
         delay, as from 16 May 2003, until full payment.              (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of
                                                                           23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                           tation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the
                                                                           Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
                                                                           European Communities (OJ No L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1).
     6.  In respect of the Altener II-Agores contract
         (DIS 1178-97): the sum of EUR 44 357, as set
         out in debit note no 32404408642, plus interest
         thereon, which, calculated as above, amounts in


title: Case T-145/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 February 2009 — Omya v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Request for information — Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Need for the information requested — Proportionality — Reasonable time — Misuse of powers — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 February 2009 — Omya v Commission
   (Case T-145/06) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Request for information - Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Need for the information requested - Proportionality - Reasonable time - Misuse of powers - Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation)
   (2009/C 69/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Ahlborn, C. Berg, Solicitors, C. Pinto Correia, lawyer, and J. Flynn QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by V. Di Bucci, X. Lewis, R. Sauer, A. Whelan and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, X Lewis, R. Sauer and A. Whelan, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 March 2006 adopted pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and requesting the correction of the information communicated in the context of the examination of (Case COMP/M. 3796 Omya v J.M. Huber PCC)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-354/08: Action brought on 21 August 2008 — Spira v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/47

         Action brought on 21 August 2008 — Spira v Commission
   (Case T-354/08)
   (2008/C 285/86)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, Y. Van Gerven, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 5 June 2008, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 773/2004, in case COMP/38.826/B-2-Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant contests Commission Decision (2008) D/203546 of 5 June 2008 by which the Commission declared that the change in facts due to the annulment by the Court of First Instance of the commitment decision (1) was not a decisive element which would require the Commission to revisit its Decision (2007) D/200338 of 26 January 2007, by which it rejected, for lack of Community interest, the applicant's complaint regarding violation of Articles 81 and 82 EC in connection with the Supplier of Choice (SoC) system applied by De Beers Group for the distribution of rough diamonds (‘rejection decision’ (2)) (Case COMP/38.826/B-2-Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice).
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.
   Firstly, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed to examine with care and impartiality the anticompetitive practices denounced by the applicant in its complaint.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that when re-examining the issue of input foreclosure the Commission could not claim that there was a lack of Community interest to act on the complaint in light of the significant damage resulting from the input foreclosure caused by the SoC system. The applicant submits that the input foreclosure should have been considered of Community interest as it affects the availability of rough diamonds EU-wide and even worldwide. It considers that the SoC distribution system is an anti-competitive selective distribution system that restricts intra-brand competition.
   Thirdly, in the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law and provided inadequate statement of reasons in the application of the foreclosure effects test by:

               —

               not having first defined the analyzed market structure, market power of the company concerned and the market position of its competitors;

               —

               failing to engage the examination of all potential restrictions or monopolization activities of the supplier whose selective distribution system was under scrutiny.

         Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and based its decision on materially incorrect facts when concluding that the SoC arrangement does not appreciably foreclose secondary market operators from access to rough diamonds (the input foreclosure).

      (1)  Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission [2007] ECR II-2601, appeal lodged by the Commission with the Court of Justice, Case C-441/07, Commission v Alrosa, OJ 2007 C 283, p. 22.

      (2)  The rejection decision is appealed by the applicant before the Court of First Instance in Case T-108/07 Spira v Commission, OJ 2007 C 129, p. 20.


title: Case T-328/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 275/52              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘LA BARONNIE’ —                  —     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
sought:                       Application No. 2 057 487 for                    name on the list of promoted officials published in AN
                              products in Class 33 (alcoholic                  No 2002-69 of 14 August 2002;
                              beverages, except beers).
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay him token damages of
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.                                   EUR 1 for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
sign cited in the oppo-                                                        failure to draw up the staff report for the period 1997 to
sition proceedings:                                                            1999;
Mark or sign cited in         National word mark ‘BARONIA’               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
opposition:                   for products covered by Class 33
                              (‘wines of all types’).
Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
sition Division:                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:                                                                  In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect        application      of       of equal treatment and non-discrimination and manifest error
                              Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)         of assessment.
                              No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                              fusion).
                                                                         Action brought on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germany)
                                                                         GmbH & Co. OHG against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich
Winter against Commission of the European Commu-
                              nities                                                             (Case T-328/03)
                        (Case T-324/03)                                                          (2003/C 275/88)
                       (2003/C 275/87)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                  (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 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germ-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                any) GmbH & Co. OHG, Munich, Germany, represented by Mr
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               N. Green QC, Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr B. Amory, lawyer and
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich                    Ms Francesca Marchini Camia, lawyer.
Winter, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébasti-
en Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul articles 2 and 3(a) of the Commission Decision of
                                                                               16 July 2003 in case COMP/38.369;
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
      name on the list of officials deemed to be most deserving          —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;
      of promotion to Grade A 4 for the 2002 promotions
      procedure published in Administrative Notices (AN)                 —     make any such further order as the Court deems appro-
      No 2002-68 of 12 August 2002;                                            priate.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/53
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Ricci Fabio
                                                                       Andrés against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
The contested decision concerns an agreement between the
applicant, O2, and T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH. The agree-                                         (Case T-329/03)
ment provides for infrastructure sharing and national roaming
for the third generation of mobile telecommunications in the
German market.                                                                                (2003/C 275/89)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The agreement was notified to the Commission and O2 and T-
Mobile requested negative clearance under Article 81(1) EC
and Article 53(1) EEA, or in the alternative for an exemption
under Article 81(3) EC and Article 53(3) EEA. Negative
clearance was granted in respect of the infrastructure sharing         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
provisions. The Commission found however that the national             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
roaming provisions restricted competition, but granted indi-           European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Ricci Fabio
vidual exemptions for these provisions under Article 81(3) Ec          Andrés, represented by Massimo Condinanzi, avvocato.
and Article 53(3) EEA for specified periods of time.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks the annulment of the specific provisions
of the decision that address the restrictions of competition           1.    Annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature
alleged to flow from national roaming, namely article 2                      in the competition COMR/B/04/2000 — Radiation pro-
and 3(a) of the contested decision. The applicant submits that               tection, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 November
the Commission’s reasoning errs in law and is insufficient.                  2002, no. B01-HR/RRA/BDU/D (2002) 14307, from the
                                                                             Director of DG JRC, Mr Jean-Pierre Vandersteen;
                                                                       2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Firstly, the applicant claims that there is no restriction on
competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC or
Article 53(1) EEA. According to the applicant, the decision
does not rest on an analysis of the actual effects of the
agreement on competition. The Commission would simply                  Pleas in law and main arguments
rely on the assumption that the purchase by one network
operator of network services from another operator will
restrict competition between the two on coverage, quality,
transmission rates or wholesale prices. The applicant submits          The present action is brought against the decision contained
furthermore that this assumption is contradicted by the                in the letter of 28 November 2002 of the Director of JRC
Commission’s own factual findings and by the case-law of the           Resources in Ispra by which the applicant, who was none the
Court and the practice of the Commission.                              less on the reserve list for the selection procedure COMR/B/
                                                                       04/2000, was notified that he did not satisfy all the necessary
                                                                       requirements for recruitment, thereby excluding him from the
                                                                       recruitment procedure.
The applicant claims secondly that the alleged restrictions of
competition do not flow from an agreement within the
meaning of Article 81(1) EC or Article 53(1) EEA, but rather           In support of his pleas the applicant alleges:
result from the unilateral actions of the applicant. According
to the applicant, the agreement does not contain any provision
restricting the competition by the applicant on coverage,              —     Breach of the independence and powers of the selection
quality, transmission rates and wholesale prices, and any                    board for the competition in question.
restriction that could arise from the agreement, would be the
result of the unilateral commercial decisions of the applicant.        —     Breach of the vacancy notice by failing to consider that it
The applicant therefore submits that the agreement is not the                allowed access to a Category C post. It is stated in this
cause of the alleged restriction on competition.                             regard that the vacancy notice was drawn up with
                                                                             reference to access to Category C3-B5/B3 in the scientific
                                                                             service. The defendant erred in stating, after the compe-
                                                                             tition, that the selection procedure was for access exclus-
                                                                             ively to a Category B post.


title: Case C-497/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč
   (Case C-497/16)
   (2017/C 022/02)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Party to the main proceedings

   Juraj Sokáč

      Question referred

   Can medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, which contain ‘scheduled substances’ as laid down by Regulation (EU) No 273/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, be regarded as excluded, on the basis of Article 2(a) of that regulation, from the scope of the Regulation in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14, even after amendment of that provision by Regulation No 1258/2013 (3) and in view of the fact that Article 2(a) of Regulation No 111/2005 (4) as amended by Regulation No 1259/2013 (5) brings medicinal products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine within the system laid down by Regulation No 111/2005?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2013 L 330, p. 21.

      (4)  OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ 2013 L 330, p. 30.


title: Case T-396/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  23 November 2005  — Soffass v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark containing the verbal element  NICKY  — Earlier national figurative marks containing the verbal element  NOKY  — Rejection of opposition for absence of likelihood of confusion — Annulled by the Board of Appeal — Remittal to the Opposition Division to examine whether the goods are similar and the proof of use — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005 — Soffass v OHIM
   (Case T-396/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘NICKY’ - Earlier national figurative marks containing the verbal element ‘NOKY’ - Rejection of opposition for absence of likelihood of confusion - Annulled by the Board of Appeal - Remittal to the Opposition Division to examine whether the goods are similar and the proof of use - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 22/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Soffass (Porcari, Italy) (represented by: V. Bilardo and C. Bacchini, lawyers)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Sodipan SCA (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)
   Application for
   action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2004 (Case R 699/2003 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Soffass SpA and Sodipan SCA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-733/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Portugal v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a State has failed to fulfil its obligations — Penalty payment — Decision quantifying the penalty payment — Repeal of the contested national measure — Date on which the infringement was brought to an end)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-733/15) (1)

   ((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that a State has failed to fulfil its obligations - Penalty payment - Decision quantifying the penalty payment - Repeal of the contested national measure - Date on which the infringement was brought to an end))
   (2017/C 151/43)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. Figueiredo, acting as Agents, and L. Silva Morais, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2015)4178538 of 8 October 2015 requesting payment by the Portuguese Republic of the sum of EUR 580 000, corresponding to the quantified penalty payment, for the period from 25 June to 21 August 2014, in compliance with the judgment of 25 June 2014, Commission v Portugal (C-76/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2029).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case C-336/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin, Germany) — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin, Germany) — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin
   (Case C-336/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 63/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landessozialgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Christel Reinke

      Respondent: AOK Berlin

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC and Article 34(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159) — Reimbursement of medical costs incurred in connection with emergency treatment of a national of a Member State in a private hospital of another Member State as a result of the refusal of the competent public hospital to provide that benefit on the ground of insufficient capacity — National legislation of the competent Member State excluding reimbursement of medical costs incurred for emergency treatment in a private hospital of another Member State but allowing reimbursement of those costs if charged by a private hospital situated in national territory

      Operative part of the order

   There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) by decision of 27 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case F-49/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 — Moragrega Arroyo v Council

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/37

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 — Moragrega Arroyo v Council
      (Case F-49/13) (1)

      (2014/C 71/75)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 20.


title: Case T-695/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/44

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA
   (Case T-695/13)
   2014/C 52/83
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Garofoli, lawyer, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, ref. Ares (203) 3321778, concerning the ‘Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport’, in which the Commission announced both the launch of the procedure for obtaining reimbursement of part of the financial assistance granted for the carrying-out of that study and the issuing of a debit note for a total of EUR 158 517,54;

               —

               annul the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), referred to in the Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, concerning the ‘Closure of Action 2009-IT-91407-S — Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, could not be identified, and, thus, could not be subsidised, and requested repayment of EUR 158 517,54.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decisions at issue in the present case are the same as those contested in Case T-270/13 and Case T-692/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the ones raised in those cases.


title: Case T-386/08: Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a horse)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/37

         Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a horse)
   (Case T-386/08)
   (2008/C 313/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research Development (Leopoldshohe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, A. Nordemann and A. Dustmann)

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

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 July 2008 in Case R 1730/2007-1 together with the decision of the examiner of 25 September 2007 and

               —

               to authorise the publication of the application for the registration of Community trade mark 4829354;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a horse for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 31 — Application No 4 829 354

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark applied for is neither directly nor exclusively descriptive, and has a sufficiently distinctive character.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-102/95: Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Contract of employment - Transfer - Place of employment)

text:
24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                nominations for the office of Ombudsman ' published on
                        of 11 July 1996                                23 May 1 995 ( OJ No C 127, 1995 , p. 4 ) and all related and
                                                                       consequential acts, the Court of First Instance ( Third
in Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission of               Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf
                the European Communities (')                           and A. Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator,
(Officials — Members ofthe temporary staff— Contract of                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 in
     employment — Transfer — Place of employment)                      which it :
                          ( 96/C 247/31 )
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as unfounded in so far as it seeks the
                                                                           annulment of the letter of the Secretary-General of the
               (Language of the case: French)                              European Parliament of 15 June 1995;
In Case T-102/95 : Jean-Pierre Aubineau , a member of the              2 . for the rest, dismisses the action as inadmissible;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges              3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire          (') O J No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio
Minneci ) — application , first, for annulment of the decision
of the Director-General of the Joint Research Centre,
contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
transferring the applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head
of the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics,              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ispra and, second, for compensation for the non-material
damage alleged by the applicant — the Court of First                                           of 11 July 1996
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  in Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer v. Court of Justice of the
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio                                 European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision by
on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as                    the selection board finding that a candidate had failed the
follows :
                                                                       oral test — Principle of equality of treatment —
                                                                       Infringement ofthe competition notice — Assessment by the
1 . the application is dismissed;                                                               selection board)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/33 )
2 . each of the parties shall bear its own costs, including
     those relating to the procedure for interim relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       In Case T-170/95 : Paolo Carrer, residing at Kehlen
                                                                       ( Luxembourg ), an official of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Roberta Borlandi ,
                                                                       of the Genoa Bar, against the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Timothy Millett and
                                                                       Antonio Borruso ) — applications for the annulment of the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               oral test in internal competition by tests No CJ 51 /93 , the
                        of 11 July 1996                                annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority on
                                                                       the basis of the reserve list drawn up by the selection board
in Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi v. European
                                                                       for that competition , and the annulment of the decision of
                           Parliament ( 1 )
                                                                       the complaints committee of 15 June 1995 rejecting the
 (Actions for annulment of measures — Ombudsman —                      applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Nominations — Appointment procedure — Inadmissibility                  Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the
             — Principle of non-discrimination)                        Chamber ), R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H.
                          ( 96/C 247/32 )                              Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in
                                                                       which it :
               (Language of the case: French)                          1 . dismisses the action ;
In Case T-146/95 : Giorgio Bernardi , residing in                      2 . orders the defendant to bear its own costs and 1 /5 of the
Luxembourg, represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi , of the                     applicant 's costs, the latter to bear 4/5 of his costs .
Massa-Carrara Bar, and , at the hearing, by Siegfried
Vormann, of the Trier Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       (') OJ No C-299 , 1 1 . 11 . 1995 .
Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 33 Rue Godchaux ,
v. European Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian
Pennera ) — application for the annulment of the ' Call for


title: Case T-422/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission (Interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable damage — Lack of urgency)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/35

         Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission
   (Case T-422/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable damage - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 347/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and D. Calciu, Agents, and by E. Petritsi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 which, on the one hand, rejects the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure AO 10340 concerning the supply of computing services for software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications (OJ 2011/S 66-106099) and, on the other, informs the applicant that the relevant framework contract has been awarded to other tenderers.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-1/02, Robert Polinsky v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Action for damages — Exposure to asbestos — Occupational disease — Damage)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-1/02, Robert Polinsky v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)
   (2004/C 314/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-1/02, Robert Polinsky, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Thionville (France), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case T-466/07: Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/52

         Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council
   (Case T-466/07)
   (2008/C 51/95)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh review regulation comes into force.

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of various types of light bulbs, including integrated electronic fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1), as this regulation only provides for the continuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all, that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Community interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings, made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case F-62/08: Action brought on 24 July 2008 — Sevenier v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/25

         Action brought on 24 July 2008 — Sevenier v Commission
   (Case F-62/08)
   (2008/C 247/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request, first, to withdraw his tender of resignation and, second, for his case to be submitted to the medical committee and, consequently, an application for reinstatement of the applicant at the European Commission with reconstitution of his career from the date of his tender of resignation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 24 September 2007 inasmuch as it rejects the applicant's request, first, to withdraw his tender of resignation of 19 October 1983 and, second, for his case to be submitted to the medical committee;

               —

               Consequently, reinstate the applicant at the European Commission with reconstitution of his career from 19 October 1983;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-830/16: Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/56

         Action brought on 23 November 2016 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)
   (Case T-830/16)
   (2017/C 022/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

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

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PLOMBIR’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1812/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-408/06: Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/39

         Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council
   (Case T-408/06)
   (2007/C 42/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd (Yang Yi, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, solicitor, R. Thompson, QC, and K. Beal, barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               The contested regulation be annulled in so far as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               the defendant meet the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-407/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council.


title: Case F-34/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2012 — Markland v Europol (Civil Service — Europol staff — Temporary staff contract — Application of the CEOS — Grading — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2012 — Markland v Europol
   (Case F-34/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Europol staff - Temporary staff contract - Application of the CEOS - Grading - Action manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 379/55
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Saskia Jane Markland (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: N.D. Dane, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to place the applicant in grade AST 5.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Ms Markland shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.11, p. 30.


title: Case C-409/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg
   (Case C-409/08)
   (2008/C 327/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Naumburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

      Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs (fees and expenses) granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid as infringing the prohibition of measures that restrict competition?

               2.

               If the question in 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court cost and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?


title: Case C-170/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

         Action brought on 4 April 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-170/17)
   (2017/C 161/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by N. Yerrell and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by issuing special national driving licences for driving vehicles of the AM harmonized category, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. (1)

               2.

               Declare that, by failing to ensure that a person holds one driving licence only, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(b) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.

               3.

               Order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   As regards the obligations of the Portuguese Republic under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) and under Article 7(5)(b) of the Directive, the Commission considers that the Portuguese Republic has not taken the necessary measures before expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Moreover, the Portuguese administration, by stating in its letter of 15 December 2016 that it will carry out future legislative amendments in this respect, itself acknowledges that it has not taken such measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006, L 403, p. 18.


title: Case T-235/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/30

         Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)
   (Case T-235/16)
   (2016/C 279/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)

      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 ‘GPTech’ — Application for registration No 12 593 869

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 848/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869;

               —

               as a conditional application, annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable;

               —

               Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

               —

               Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled;

               —

               Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-69/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Schunk and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products — Plea of illegality — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity and effect of the infringement — Deterrent effect — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Principle of proportionality — Principe of equal treatment — Counterclaim to increase the fine)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Schunk and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik v Commission
   (Case T-69/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Plea of illegality - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and effect of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of proportionality - Principe of equal treatment - Counterclaim to increase the fine)
   (2008/C 301/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Schunk GmbH (Thale, Germany); and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik GmbH (Heuchelheim, Germany) (represented by: initially by R. Bechtold and S. Hirsbrunner, and subsequently by R. Bechtold, S. Hirsbrunner and A. Schädle, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and H. Gading, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products) and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision, and a counterclaim of the Commission seeking to have that fine increased.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Schunk GmbH and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-351/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Articles 8 and 15 — Status of inland surface water — Establishment and making operational of monitoring programmes — Failure — Submission of summary reports on those monitoring programmes — Failure)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-351/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Articles 8 and 15 - Status of inland surface water - Establishment and making operational of monitoring programmes - Failure - Submission of summary reports on those monitoring programmes - Failure)
   2011/C 63/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and K. Xuereb, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, D. Mangion, P. Grech and Y. Rizzo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 8 and 15 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Obligation to establish and make operational programmes for the monitoring of the status of surface waters — Obligation to submit summary reports regarding the programmes for the monitoring of surface waters

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing, firstly, to establish monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water and make them operational in accordance with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, and, secondly, to submit summary reports on the monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water in accordance with Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 15 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.