title: Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2003 in Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session): Booker Aquaculture Ltd, trading as "Marine Harvest McConnell" (C-20/00), Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd (C-64/00) v The Scottish Ministers (Directive 93/53/EEC — Destruction of fish stocks infected by viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) — Compensation — Obligations of the Member State — Protection of fundamental rights, particularly of the right to property — Validity of Directive 93/53)

text:
23.8.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 200/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                         H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                         a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it has ruled:
                        of 10 July 2003
in Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Court of Session): Booker
                                                                         1.    Examination of the fourth question referred for a preliminary
Aquaculture Ltd, trading as ‘Marine Harvest McConnell’
                                                                               ruling in Case C-64/00 has disclosed no factor of such a kind
(C-20/00), Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd (C-64/00) v The Scot-
                                                                               as to affect the validity of Council Directive 93/53/EEC of
                        tish Ministers (1)
                                                                               24 June 1993 introducing minimum Community measures for
                                                                               the control of certain fish diseases, by reason of its laying down
                                                                               minimum measures to control diseases in List I in Annex A to
(Directive 93/53/EEC — Destruction of fish stocks infected                     Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning
by viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious                         the animal health conditions governing the placing on the
salmon anaemia (ISA) — Compensation — Obligations of                           market of aquaculture animals and products, as amended by
the Member State — Protection of fundamental rights,                           Council Directive 93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993, without
particularly of the right to property — Validity of Directive                  providing for compensation for owners affected by those
                              93/53)                                           measures.
                        (2003/C 200/01)
                                                                         2.    The measures for the immediate destruction and slaughter of
                 (Language of the case: English)                               fish implemented by a Member State in order to control List I
                                                                               and II diseases in the context of the application of Directive
                                                                               93/53, which are, respectively, identical and similar to the
                                                                               minimum measures which the Community has laid down for
                                                                               List I diseases and which do not provide for compensation, are
                                                                               not, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
                                                                               incompatible with the fundamental right to property.
In Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the Court of Session (Scotland)
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Booker Aquaculture Ltd,
trading as ‘Marine Harvest McConnell’ (C-20/00), Hydro                   3.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the fact
Seafood GSP Ltd (C-64/00) and The Scottish Ministers, on the                   that the outbreak of the disease is due or not due to the fish
interpretation of the principles of Community law on the                       owner's fault has no bearing on the compatibility with the
protection of fundamental rights, in particular of the right to                fundamental right to property of the measures imposed by a
property, and on the validity of Council Directive 93/53/EEC                   Member State in order to control List I and II diseases in the
of 24 June 1993 introducing minimum Community measures                         context of the application of Directive 93/53.
for the control of certain fish diseases (OJ 1993 L 175, p. 23),
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-                (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000, OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2003 in Case T-155/02: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 — Provisional safeguard measures — Actions for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 200/22              EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                            and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. F. Crespo Carrillo), the other
                      of 26 February 2003                                   party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the
                                                                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
in Case T-7/02: ZAPF Creation AG v Office for Harmoni-                      and Designs) being: JESMAR, SA, established in Alicante
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     (Spain): Action brought against the decision of the First Board
                             (OHIM) (1)                                     of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2001 (Case
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-                       R 418/2000-1), which was served on the applicant on
                 ment — No need to adjudicate)                              5 November 2001, relating to opposition proceedings between
                                                                            ZAPF Creation AG and JESMAR SA, the Court of First Instance
                          (2003/C 200/38)                                   (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi
                                                                            and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            on 26 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
In Case T-7/02, ZAPF Creation AG, established in Rödental/
Coburg (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, v
                                                                            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. F. Crespo Carrillo), the other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the                  2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) being: JESMAR, SA, established in Alicante
(Spain): Action brought against the decision of the First Board             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2001 (Case
R 1123/2000-1), which was served on the applicant on
29 October 2001, relating to opposition proceedings between
ZAPF Creation AG and JESMAR SA, the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi
and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order
on 26 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                of 30 April 2003
( ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
 1
                                                                            in Case T-155/02: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                            mbH and Others v Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities (1)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Regulation (EC) No 560/
                      of 26 February 2003                                   2002 — Provisional safeguard measures — Actions for
                                                                                annulment — Inadmissibility)
in Case T-8/02: ZAPF Creation AG v Office for Harmoni-
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)                                                               (2003/C 200/40)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-
                 ment — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2003/C 200/39)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-155/02: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft mbH,
                                                                            established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International) Ltd,
In Case T-8/02, ZAPF Creation AG, established in Rödental/                  established in Gibraltar (United Kingdom), Metalsivas Metall-
Coburg (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, v                   warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna (Austria),
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 200/23
represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Commission of the                2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and those incurred by
European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Eggers)                        the Commission.
— application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional safe-
guard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ                (1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
2002 L 85, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 April
2003, in which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as inadmissible.
2.    Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the              ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission, including the costs relating to the procedure for
      interim relief.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
( ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.02.
 1
                                                                            in Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Application for annulment — Directive 2002/58/EC —
                                                                            Natural or legal persons — Standing to bring proceedings
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 200/42)
                            of 9 April 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin, residing in
                                                                            Grigny (France), represented by G. Dupaigne, lawyer, against
                                                                            the European Parliament (Agents: H. Duintjer Tebbens and
(Application for annulment — Actionable measures — Inad-
                                                                            A. Caiola) and the Council of the European Union (Agent:
                               missibility)
                                                                            M.-C. Giorgi Fort) — application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                            Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
                            (2003/C 200/41)                                 data and the protection of privacy in the electronic commu-
                                                                            nications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic commu-
                                                                            nications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — the Court of First
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                            P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                            an order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
In Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart, residing in Papen-
drecht (Netherlands), Johanna Cornelia Pikaart-Leeuwestein,
residing in Papendrecht, Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Factotum’                  1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
vof, established in Papendrecht, represented by J. van Dam
and D. Ouwerling, lawyers, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application for                     2.    It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to
annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in                          intervene lodged by the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission.
the letter addressed to the applicants by its services on 16 July
2002 (D (2002) 11796) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            3.    The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
                                                                                the Parliament and the Council.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 April
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2003.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Case C-372/00: Action brought on 10 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 355/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.12.2000
Action brought on 5 October 2000 by the Commission                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                        1.    declare that by failing to take all necessary measures to
                        (Case C-367/00)                                       ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to
                                                                              the limit values in Council Directive 76/160/EEC(1) of
                                                                              8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
                        (2000/C 355/22)                                       water and by failing to carry out the required minimum
                                                                              of sampling operations the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
                                                                              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                  directive;
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as               2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Under the binding provisions of the third paragraph of
                                                                        Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC,
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and       Member States must take, within the prescribed period, the
      administrative provisions needed in order to comply with          measures necessary to comply with directives addressed to the
      Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the                 Member States. In the case of Sweden, Directive 76/160/EEC
      interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail            entered into force on 1 January 1995 as a result of the Act of
      system(1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its           Accession (Article 2). Sweden was therefore obliged to meet
      obligations under that directive;                                 the requirements of the directive by that date at the latest.
                                                                        However, by the 1998 bathing season, Sweden had not taken
                                                                        all the measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the directive.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (1) OJ 1976 L 031, p. 1.
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Case C-366/00(2); the period for transposition laid down by
Article 23 of Directive 96/48/EC expired on 8 April 1999.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
(2) OJ C ...
                                                                        Action brought on 10 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-372/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/24)
Action brought on 6 October 2000 by the Commission                      An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2000 by
                             Sweden                                     the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
                                                                        address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                        (Case C-368/00)                                 member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                        (2000/C 355/23)
                                                                        The Applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
on 6 October 2000 by the Commission of the European                           or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Communities, represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service,                 Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of that service,                 system (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     that Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/13
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        directives are to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under the
                                                                       first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,          particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance              of the Community.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 8 April 1999
without Ireland having adopted all the measures necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the        The Commission finds that, to date, despite the expiry of the
Commission.                                                            prescribed period, the Italian Republic has not forwarded the
                                                                       reports on the implementation of the directives referred to in
                                                                       the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
                                                                       (3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                        (Case C-376/00)                                                         of Luxembourg
                        (2000/C 355/25)                                                         (Case C-377/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/26)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvelbaek,
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
of its Legal Service, and Roberto Amorosi, judge on
                                                                       ties on 13 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
secondment to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Kirchberg.
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to forward within the period            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt or notify the laws,
      prescribed by Article 5 of Council Directive                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      91/692/EEC (1) of 23 December 1991 standardizing and                   comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March
      rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain                 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1),
      Directives relating to the environment the reports                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      required under:                                                        Directive;
      —     Article 18 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC (2) of          2.    Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as
            amended by Directive 87/101/EEC;                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Article 121 of Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste as        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
            amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;                           submitted in Case C-335/00 (2); the period prescribed by
                                                                       Article 14(1) of Directive 98/18/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
      each of which as amended by Article 5 of the abovemen-
      tioned Directive 91/692/EEC, in respect of the period
      1995-1997, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its         (1) OJ L 144 of 15.5.1998, p. 1.
      obligations under the abovementioned directives.                 (2) OJ C ...
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case F-34/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Michail v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/24

         Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Michail v Commission
   (Case F-34/06)
   (2006/C 154/57)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the year 2004, as established by the SYSPER2 system in which it is included;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaints;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, amounting to EUR 120 000;

               —

               Make an appropriate order as to costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official in Grade A*12, challenges the validity of the CDR which the defendant established for him for the year 2004. In support of his action, he submits, first, that that CDR assesses and includes a statement of reasons only for the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2004 inclusive, while the first four months of that year were not taken into account, even by means of a reference to the mark in the interim note specifically covering that period. That omission constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant adds that, in any event, the interim note was drawn up by an authority without the power to do so.
   Next, the applicant claims that in the second part of 2004 his superiors only entrusted him with tasks of a circumstantial or ancillary nature which were of no use for the purpose of drawing up a CDR for an official of his grade.
   The applicant alleges, lastly, infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations on psychological harassment.


title: Case C-245/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a figurative mark including the word element SELEZIONE ORO Barilla — Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/25

         Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA
   (Case C-245/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for a figurative mark including the word element ‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ - Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 96/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Saiwa SpA (represented by: G. Sena, P. Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty, M. Karsenty-Ricard, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents), Barilla G. and R Fratelli SpA, formerly Barilla Alimentare SpA (represented by A. Vanzetti, avvocato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa SpA v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the national and international word mark ‘ORO ’and the national word mark ‘ORO SAIWA ’for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the application to register a figurative mark including the word elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO ’and ‘Barilla ’for goods in Class 30 — Similarity of marks — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case T-387/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2007 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission (Annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National plan for allocation of emission quotas for Germany — State aid — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2007 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission
   (Case T-387/04) (1)

   (Annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National plan for allocation of emission quotas for Germany - State aid - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 140/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C.-D. Ehlermann, M. Seyfarth, A. Gutermuth and M. Wissmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, M. Niejahr and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and U. Forsthoff, Agents, and D. Sellner and U. Karpenstein, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 2515/2 final of 7 July 2004 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, communicated by Germany in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the defendant;

               3.

               The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-54/00: Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofradias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
C 135/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
The applicant also submits that the statement of reasons is              In support of her claims, she pleads:
defective and that no investigation was carried out, in so far as
the contested letter bases its statement that there was no abuse         — infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
of a dominant position by Ancona Merci on the fact that quay                 and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and of Annex III
No 25 does not form part of an essential infrastructure within               thereto, in so far as, in the competition in question, there
the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.                         was a second series of written tests for five new candidates.
                                                                             In addition, that competition was open to all members of
                                                                             temporary staff, whether remunerated from the appropri-
(1) OJ L 354 of 30.12.1998, p. 12.                                           ation for ‘research’ or from the appropriation for ‘adminis-
                                                                             tration’. A procedure in respect of appointment as estab-
                                                                             lished officials cannot be organised in the same way for
                                                                             staff under different budgetary terms.
                                                                         — infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex
                                                                             III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of having
                                                                             regard for the welfare of officials and of sound management
                                                                             and fair administration, and disregard for the interest of
Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli                             the service. The applicant claims, on that point, that
  against the Commission of the European Communities                         the competition jury selected a number of successful
                                                                             candidates which was lower than the number of posts
                                                                             available and that, in the present case, the jury did not
                         (Case T-53/00)                                      comply with the objective pursued by a recruitment
                                                                             procedure in respect of appointment as established
                        (2000/C 135/43)                                      officials: the appointment as established officials of persons
                                                                             such as to enable the institution to carry out its tasks.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also cites the breach of the obligation to state
                                                                         reasons and the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli,
residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the jury for the internal competition            Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de
    concerning the appointment as established officials of               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de
    members of the temporary staff in category COM/TA/2/98               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofrad-
    not to include the applicant on the list of suitable                 ias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of
    candidates;                                                                                the European Union
— annul all the other subsequent acts adopted by the                                              (Case T-54/00)
    abovementioned competition jury and by the appointing
    authority;
                                                                                (2000/C 135/44)
— in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
    appointing authority to reject the applicant’s complaint, a
    decision of 1 December 1999, notified on 7 December
    1999;                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 11 March 2000
                                                                         by Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipuzcoa,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación
                                                                         de Cofradias de Pescadores de Cantabria and Others, which are
                                                                         registered in San Sebastifin, Bilbao and Santander, respectively,
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of suitable           represented by Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
candidates drawn up following her participation in the tests             Domingues Pérez, of the Madrid and La Coruña Bars, respect-
for Competition COM/TA/99.                                               ively, with offices at 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of
                                                                              20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture (3), as regards, in particular,
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)                      the obligation to provide for rational and responsible
     No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                     exploitation of live aquatic resources of the sea and the
     fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain              principle of relative stability;
     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
     Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters               — Infringement of the precautionary principle provided for
     where limitations in catch are required and amending                     in Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
     Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
                                                                          — Infringement of Regulation No 685/95, cited above,
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of                     through transfer of a quota from one zone to another,
     Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                         given that the said regulation provides for the transfer of
     27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort                    quotas once a total allowable catch (TAC) has been fixed
     relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,               for both zones.
     on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council
     approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone              Finally, the applicants allege infringement of Article 6 of the
     VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                           European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                          Freedoms.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 89.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 71 of 31.3.1995, p. 5.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 92 of 16.4.1993, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The applicants oppose the authorisation for the transfer of
3 000 tonnes of anchovies from ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
area 34.1.1., by the Portuguese Republic to the French Republic
to be fished in waters under French jurisdiction in ICES zone
VIII. That authorisation appears in part nine of Annex ID,                Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit
relating to anchovy in zones IX and X, CECAF 34.1.1., to                  International Limited against the Council of the European
Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999                  Union and the Commission of the European Communities
fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels,                                         (Case T-56/00)
in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending
Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1).                                                                     (2000/C 135/45)
The applicants also allege the illegality of Council Regulation                              (Language of the case: English)
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
resources (2).                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, they allege:                                  on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited,
                                                                          represented by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
— There is no res judicata in this case despite the fact that the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Court of Justice gave a ruling, in its judgment of 5 October
     1999, on the said transfer of quota carried out in 1995,             — order that the measure of the damages be the level of the
     and that there is no overlap with the contested regulations;             cost of the special export certificates or in the alternative
                                                                              propose other criteria on which the damage may be
                                                                              calculated;
— There is a manifest error in the assessment of the facts
     since the consequences of the scientific reports, as com-
     pared with other criteria, are underestimated;                       — order payment of interest on the damages caused at the
                                                                              appropriate level;
— The objectives of the common agricultural policy envisaged              — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs
     in Article 33 of the EC Treaty have been disregarded;                    of these proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 November 1998 in Case C-228/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice Conciliatore, Milan): Aprile Srl, in liquidation v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Charges having equivalent effect - Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law) (1999/C 1/03)

text:
C 1/2                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.1.1999
Belgium, represented by O. W. Brouwer, of the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Amsterdam Bar, and F. P. Louis and P. Wytinck, both of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                                        of 17 November 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of                in Case C-228/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
First Instance of the European Communities (Second                  the Giudice Conciliatore, Milan): Aprile Srl, in liquidation
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 December 1996                         v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (1)
in Case T-87/92 Kruidvat v. Commission [1996] ECR
II-1931, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other         (Charges having equivalent effect Ð Recovery of sums
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the                 paid but not due Ð Procedural time-limits under national
European Communities (Agent: B. J. Drijber), supported                                           law)
by Parfums Givenchy SA, a company incorporated under
French law, established in Levallois-Perret, France,                                        (1999/C 1/03)
represented by F. Bizet, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31
Grand-Rue, ComiteÂ de Liaison des Syndicates EuropeÂens
de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des CosmeÂtiques
(Colipa), an international non-profit-making association                            (Language of the case: Italian)
governed by Belgian law, having its headquarters in
Brussels, represented by F. Herbert, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of C. Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, and
FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Parfumeurs DeÂtaillants
(FEPD), an association of national federations or unions             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
governed by French law, having its headquarters in Paris,                     published in the European Court Reports)
represented by R. Verniau, of the Lyons Bar Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M.                      In Case C-228/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R.                 of the EC Treaty from the Giudice Conciliatore
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 November               (Judge-Conciliator), Milan (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
1998, in which it:                                                  in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                    Aprile Srl, in liquidation and Amministrazione delle
                                                                    Finanze dello Stato Ð on the interpretation of Community
                                                                    law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due Ð
                                                                    the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                    President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J.-P. Puissochet
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                            (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L.
                                                                    Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou,
                                                                    Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                    Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 17 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders Kruidvat BVBA to pay the costs of the
     Commission and of the intervener Parfums Givenchy
     SA, and to bear its own costs;
                                                                    1. Community law does not preclude the application of a
                                                                        national provision which, for all actions for repayment
                                                                        of customs charges, imposes a special time-limit of
                                                                        five, and subsequently three, years, instead of the
                                                                        ordinary limitation period of ten years for actions for
3. Orders the ComiteÂ de Liaison des Syndicats EuropeÂens
                                                                        the recovery of sums paid but not due, provided that
     de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des CosmeÂtiques and
                                                                        that time-limit, which is similar to that imposed for
     the FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Parfumeurs DeÂtaillants
                                                                        certain taxes, applies in the same way to actions based
     to bear their own costs.
                                                                        on Community law for repayment of such charges as
                                                                        to those based on national law.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                    2. In circumstances such as those of the main
                                                                        proceedings, Community law does not prohibit a
                                                                        Member State from resisting actions for repayment of
                                                                        charges levied in breach of Community law by relying
 ---pagebreak--- 4.1.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 1/3
     on a time-limit under national law even if that                 3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     Member State has not yet amended its national rules                  to bear its own costs.
     in order to render them compatible with those
     provisions.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     in Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
                    of 19 November 1998                                               the European Communities (1)
in Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the                 (Commercial policy Ð Quantitative limits on imports of
European Union supported by Commission of the                        textil products Ð Products originating in the People's
                  European Communities (1)                           Republic of China Ð Additional imports Ð Commission's
                                                                                powers of implementation)
(Action for annulment Ð Common commercial policy Ð
Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and (EC) No 1921/94 Ð                                              (1999/C 1/05)
Import quotas for certain toys from the People's Republic
                           of China)
                         (1999/C 1/04)                                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     In Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Fernandes and Maria Luísa Durante) v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agents: Marc de Pauw and
                                                                     Francisco de Sousa Fialho) Ð application for annulment
                                                                     of the Commission's practice of applying exceptional
In Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto                  flexibility' measures in the administration of quantitative
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo DiaÂz) v. Council of              limits on importation into the European Community of
the European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Guus                textile products and clothing from non-member countries
Houttuin and Diego Canga Fano), supported by                         and, specifically, of the decision adopted by the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Commission following the meeting of the Textile
Miguel Díaz-Llanos, Patrick Hetsch and Carlos Gómez de               Committee of 6 March 1996 concerning textile products
la Cruz Ð Application for the annulment of Council                   originating from the People's Republic of China Ð the
Regulation (EC) No 1921/94 of 25 July 1994 amending                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports                (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
from certain third countries (OJ L 198, 30.7.1994, p. 1)             Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P. J. G.                    A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; P. LeÂger,                    19 November 1998, in which it:
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares the action inadmissible as regards the claim
                                                                          for annulment of the practice of exceptional
1. Dismisses the application;                                             flexibility' measures followed by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities in the administration of
                                                                          quantitative limits on the importation into the
                                                                          Community of textile products and clothing
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                          originating in non-member countries;


title: Case F-78/07: Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Boudova and Others v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/42

         Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Boudova and Others v Commission
   (Case F-78/07)
   (2007/C 247/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Stanislava Boudova (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision of the Commission of 23 September 2006, confirmed by the letter of the Director-General of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE), to reject the applicants' application of 23 May 2006, the purpose of which was:

                           —

                           the revision of their classification in grade B*3 by the decision to recruit them as probationary officials and their reclassification in grade B*6 as at the time at which that decision took effect;

                           —

                           the reconstitution on that basis of their careers between the date when they took up their duties as probationary officials and the date of the decision to be taken;

                           —

                           the payment of the difference between the remuneration to which they would have been entitled during that period if they had been classified in grade B*6 and that which they received on account of their classification in grade B*3;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants state that they were recruited by the Commission as auxiliary staff to the posts of proofreaders within OPOCE before the entry into force, on 1 May 2004, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) in view of the enlargement and of filling those posts by open competition.
   After they had passed the open competitions published at grade B5/B4 before 1 May for the purpose of filling those posts, the applicants were recruited as probationary officials on the basis of reserve lists published after that date. They were classified in grade B*3 on the basis of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’).
   The applicants submit that their action is admissible on account of a new substantial fact although they did not bring a complaint against the decisions laying down their classification in grade in the period laid down in the Staff Regulations for filing a complaint. That new substantial fact is the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 to reclassify the temporary servants who were appointed officials, on the basis of open competitions, after 1 May 2004, in the grade in which they would have been classified if they had been recruited as officials before that date.
   The applicants consider that they have been discriminated against by the reclassification of those officials of the Parliament and take the view that they should be entitled to the same treatment, inasmuch as they submit that they were really recruited as temporary servants and not as auxiliary staff. In their opinion, their contracts fall within the scope of Article 2 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) and not of Article 3a thereof given that they had to fill posts which were temporarily vacant and not to replace officials or temporary servants who were unable for the time being to perform their duties. In the alternative, the applicants submit that, even if they had been recruited as auxiliary staff, their position would in any event have been analogous to that of temporary servants.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on one plea in law alleging infringement of Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations interpreted by reference to the principle of equal treatment. In particular, Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to temporary servants who were appointed officials on the basis of open competitions, something which would preclude the classification in grade of that group from being fixed on the basis of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.


               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/3

         (2008/C 64/02)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

      OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

      OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

      OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

      OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case F-109/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Scheidemann v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Interinstitutional transfer during the promotion exercise during which the civil servant was eligible for promotion in her institution of origin — Application to benefit from a retroactive promotion — Specific rejection decision which took effect after the implicit decision — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Out of time — Out of time)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Scheidemann v Parliament
   (Case F-109/12)
   (Civil service - Officials - Interinstitutional transfer during the promotion exercise during which the civil servant was eligible for promotion in her institution of origin - Application to benefit from a retroactive promotion - Specific rejection decision which took effect after the implicit decision - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Out of time - Out of time)
   2013/C 46/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabine Scheidemann (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Re:

   Civil service — Application to annul the decision of the Parliament to reject the applicant’s application to be promoted retroactively from 1 January 2010.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Mrs Scheidemann shall bear her own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

text:
C 146/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.6.2003
subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions
raised by a defendant.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
                                                                             in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
                                                                             formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
                                                                             Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                     beheer (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
                                                                             Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
                                                                             stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
                            of 8 May 2003
                                                                             use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
                                                                             manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
in Case C-113/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
     the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): Paranova Oy (1)                             pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —                                                    (2003/C 146/13)
Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
               the medicinal product of reference)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (2003/C 146/12)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
                                                                             EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
In Case C-113/01: Reference to the Court under Article                       BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
234 EC by Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland) for a                       en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as
court brought by Paranova Oy on the interpretation of                        amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and                          (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                 Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                             M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of a marketing           1.    Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the                 stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.             operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/
However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel                 EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
imports of the medicinal product in question where there is in fact a              Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
risk to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of             Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose
that medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.                of implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
                                                                                1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments
                                                                                of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January
                                                                                1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
                                                                                waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/9
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by                                        (Sixth Chamber)
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that                                       of 8 May 2003
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
                                                                             in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
                                                                                Innen/UG’ (1)
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for
                                                                             workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                             Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
                                                                             regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
                                                                                from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/15)
                            of 8 May 2003
in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com-                                                (Language of the case: German)
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets                                          in the European Court Reports)
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
    Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
                           (2003/C 146/14)
                                                                             In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    (Language of the case: German)                           ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
                                                                             Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
                                                                             ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                    nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt:                   parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                ‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February                       Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-                      Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other              the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                   ation Council established by the Association Agreement
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the                    between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                       of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the appeal.
                                                                             Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
2.    Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
                                                                             development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
                                                                             established by the Association Agreement between the European
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:
                                                                             —     having direct effect in the Member States, and


title: Case T-490/15: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM — StoryDOCKS (tolino) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/47

         Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM — StoryDOCKS (tolino)
   (Case T-490/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 156/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Köklü, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: StoryDOCKS GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Graef and C. Rauda, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 (Case R 2042/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Verlag Friedrich Oetinger GmbH, now StoryDOCKS GmbH, and PF&P Rechtsanwälte, now SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB and StoryDOCKS GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-352/16: Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra — Spain) — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra — Spain) — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal
   (Case C-352/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case T-189/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Usinor v OHIM — Corus UK (GALVALLOY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GALVALLOY — Earlier national word mark GALVALLIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Usinor v OHIM — Corus UK (GALVALLOY)
   (Case T-189/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GALVALLOY - Earlier national word mark GALVALLIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 79/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Usinor SA (Puteaux, France) (represented by: P. de Candé and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Corus UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Usinor SA and Corus UK Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA;

               3.

               Orders Corus UK Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-54/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lafarge v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plasterboard market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Liability — Deterrence — Repeat infringement — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lafarge v Commission
   (Case T-54/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Liability - Deterrence - Repeat infringement - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   (2008/C 209/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lafarge SA (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Lesguillons, J.-C. Bermond, N. Jalabert-Doury, A. Winckler, F. Brunet and I. Simic initially, then by N. Jalabert-Doury, A. Winckler and F. Brunet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Ingen-Housz initially, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt and E. Karlsson, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8), or, in the alternative, an application for the annulment of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lafarge SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-142/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Aventis Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Fasel (CULTRA)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/27

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Aventis Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Fasel (CULTRA)
   (Case T-142/12)
   2012/C 165/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (New Jersey, United States) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fasel Srl (Bologna, Italy)

      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 26 January 2012 in case R 2478/2010-1;

               —

               The Court is invited to provide its opinion and reasons, as regards the similarity of signs, had the correct facts and tests been applied by the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the losing party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings and in the previous proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CULTRA’, for goods in class 10 — Community trade mark application No 7534035

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Czech trade mark registration No 301724 of the word mark ‘SCULPTRA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 44; German trade mark registration No 30406574 of the word mark ‘SCULPTRA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 44; Finish trade mark registration No 233638 of the word mark ‘SCULPTRA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 44; UK trade mark registration No 2355273 of the word mark ‘SCULPTRA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 44; Hungarian trade mark registration No 183214 of the word mark ‘SCULPTRA’, for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 44

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) based its reasoning and decision on a fact that was not alleged or submitted by the parties, nor referred to in the contested decision, namely that the contested sign will primarily or exclusively be perceived as ‘ULTRA’ with a rounded figurative element; (ii) failed to address important arguments and evidence submitted by the applicant, regarding conceptual similarity, failed to compare correctly the signs with regard to their overall impression, and failed accordingly to apply the global comparison rule, as defined by the Court of Justice; (iii) failed to proceed to an evaluation of likelihood of confusion based on the sole facts that were placed before it; and (iv) failed to take into account in a legally sustainable manner the interdependence of relevant global factors, in particular, the identity or similarity of the goods and services, and the similarity between the signs.


title: Case F-23/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/33

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission
   (Case F-23/08)
   (2008/C 116/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 2 priority points and a grand total of 21 points, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 2 priority points and a grand total of 21 points, and order that the defendant pay compensation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 5 000;

               —

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


title: Case C-70/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 122/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                           Removal from the register of Case C-373/98 (1)
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (2000/C 122/30)
                         (Case C-70/00)
                        (2000/C 122/28)                                 By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of               from the register of Case C-373/98: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by              European Communities v French Republic.
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/36/EC (1) of 2 June 1998
     amending Directive 96/5/EC on processed cereal-based
     foods and baby foods and baby foods for infants and
     young children (2) or, an any event, by failing to inform the             Removal from the register of Case C-161/99 (1)
     Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that Directive; and,
                                                                                (2000/C 122/31)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                        By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        from the register of Case C-161/99: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) OJ L 167, 12.06.1998, p. 23.
(2) Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996,
    OJ L 049, 28.02.1996, p. 17.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-149/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/32)
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/98 (1)                  By order of 14 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                        (2000/C 122/29)                                 from the register of Case C-149/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johannes Blachnitzky
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of               v Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal             Landesregierung.
from the register of Case C-360/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Bobigny): Bernard
Bauduin and Laurent Blondeau v SA Renault.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.