title: Case C-317/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 20 June 2001 in the case of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer and 4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
27.10.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/9
      administrative authorities of instances of incorrect label-      2.    Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
      ling, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 (1)               Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
      of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication                    of the Association between the European Economic
      of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from                   Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers
      genetically modified organisms of particulars other than               employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers
      those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC (2), constitute             engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through
      ‘information relating to the environment’ within the                   a Member State of the Community without belonging to
      meaning of Article 2(a) of Council Directive                           the legitimate labour force of that Member State?
      90/313/EEC (3) of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
      to information on the environment?
                                                                       3.    Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
2.    Does information contained in administrative documents                 ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
      revealing the frequency with which administrative penal-               between the European Economic Community and Turkey
      ties have been imposed for infringement of Regulation                  to be interpreted as meaning that
      (EC) No 1139/98 constitute ‘information relating to the
      environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of                     (a)   a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction on
      Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                           the freedom to provide services which is contrary to
      freedom of access to information on the environment?                         the Additional Protocol and, if so, that
3.    Does information contained in administrative documents
      revealing the manufacturers and products to which                      (b) a new restriction on the freedom to provide services
      administrative penalties for infringement of Regulation                      also exists where a Member State of the Community,
      (EC) No 1139/98 relate constitute ‘information relating                      from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,
      to the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of                    restricts the access of Turkish workers to the
      Council Directive 90/131/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                           employment market and thereby impedes the free-
      freedom of access to information on the environment?                         dom to provide services of businessmen employing
                                                                                the workers?
(1) OJ 1998 L 159, p. 4.
(2) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
gericht by order of that court of 20 June 2001 in the case
                                                                       Tributaria Provinciale di Roma by order of that court of
of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer and
                                                                       27 February 2001 in the case of Informatica e Telecomu-
          4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                                                                       nicazioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle
                                                                                Entrate per il Lazio
                         (Case C-317/01)
                         (2001/C 303/14)                                                        (Case C-318/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                                        (2001/C 303/15)
(Federal Social Court) of 20 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and 4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour          European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
Office) on the following questions:                                    ria Provinciale di Roma of 27 February 2001, which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 14 August 2001, for a
1.    Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association             preliminary ruling in the case of Informatica e Telecomunica-
      Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                  zioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per
      of the Association between the European Economic                 il Lazio on the following question:
      Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting
      a Member State of the Community from introducing
      national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-           Is a legislative measure imposing a charge on the net assets of
      ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down            a company having effects equivalent to an indirect charge on
      new restrictions on access to the employment market for          transfers compatible with Community law and in particular
      Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on            with Directive 69/335/EEC?
      introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
      No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first
      legally resident and employed?


title: Joined Cases T-81/07, T-82/07 and T-83/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — KG Holding and Others v Commission (State aid — Restructuring aid granted by the Netherlands authorities to KG Holding NV — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Partial inadmissibility — Recovery of aid from recipient undertakings declared bankrupt — Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — KG Holding and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-81/07, T-82/07 and T-83/07) (1)

   (State aid - Restructuring aid granted by the Netherlands authorities to KG Holding NV - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Partial inadmissibility - Recovery of aid from recipient undertakings declared bankrupt - Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty)
   2009/C 193/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant in Case T-81/07: Jan Rudolf Maas, acting in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to KG Holding NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-82/07: Jan Rudolf Maas and Cornelis van den Bergh, acting in their capacity as administrators in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Kliq BV (Rotterdam) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-83/07: Jean Leon Marcel Groenewegen, acting in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Kliq Reïntegratie (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/939/EC of 19 July 2006 on the aid measure notified by the Netherlands for KG Holding NV (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 40).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2006/939/EC of 19 July 2006 on the aid measure notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for KG Holding NV;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the applications;

               3.

               Orders Jan Rudolf Maas, in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to KG Holding NV, to bear his own costs in Case T-81/07;

               4.

               Orders Jan Rudolf Maas and Cornelis van den Bergh, in their capacity as administrators in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Kliq BV, to bear their own costs in Case T-82/07;

               5.

               Orders Jean Leon Marcel Groenewegen, in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to Kliq Reïntegratie, to bear, in addition to his own costs in Case T-83/07, those incurred by the Commission in Case T-83/07;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Cases T-81/07 and T-82/07.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007.


title: Case F-10/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/82

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   (Case F-10/09) (1)

   2010/C 24/159

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 37.


title: Case F-11/05 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2009 — Chassagne v Commission (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/77

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2009 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-11/05 RENV) (1)

   (Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 24/145
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, acting as Agents, and by F. Longfils, lawyer, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to apply to the applicant, who is a native of a French Overseas Department, during the transitional period the provisions in force prior to 1 May 2004 on the detailed rules for the reimbursement of travel expenses applicable to officials whose place of employment and place of origin is in Europe and, secondly, an application for damages — Case T-253/06 P referred back after appeal

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-11/05 RENV Chassagne v Commission and the case shall be removed from the register.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant until delivery of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2008. After delivery of that judgment, each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005, p. 36.


title: Case T-357/11: Action brought on 1 July 2011 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/44

         Action brought on 1 July 2011 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)
   (Case T-357/11)
   2011/C 252/95
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 April 2011, in accordance with Article 65(3) of the CTMR, on account of infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR, and refuse registration of the trade mark concerned — figurative mark 5.025.598 ‘GRUPO BIMBO’ — in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;

               —

               In the alternative, and only in the event that the previous claim is rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 April 2011 on account of infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B de C.V.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘GRUPO BIMBO’ (application No 5.025.598) for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 43.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘BIMBO’ (No 2.689.432) for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30, and various Spanish figurative marks (No 464.785, No 2.244.562, No 2.244.563 and No 2.255.097) which include the word element ‘BIMBO’, for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision under appeal annulled in part.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, since, following a finding that the BIMBO trade marks cited in opposition are trade marks with a reputation in the Spanish market and that the mark applied for ‘GRUPO BIMBO’ is virtually identical to the opposing marks, the application for that trade mark was granted in part, on the basis that it had not been proved that unfair advantage was taken of the repute or distinctive character of the opposing marks or that there was any risk to that repute or distinctive character.


title: Case C-246/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 — Article 13(3) — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Article 21(1) — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Reduction in financing)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-246/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Article 21(1) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction in financing)
   2013/C 114/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, A. Steiblytė and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07 Portugal v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the final assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the final assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case C-287/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék lodged on 11 June 2014  — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi Törvényszék

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék lodged on 11 June 2014 — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi Törvényszék
   (Case C-287/14)
   2014/C 303/24
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurospeed Ltd

      Defendant: Szegedi Törvényszék

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the fact that a Member State is liable to make good damage resulting from a breach of EU law preclude the application of rules on liability when ruling on a claim for damages brought on that basis against the State body actually responsible for the breach?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Article 10(3) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC (1) preclude the adoption of a national law by the Member State which, in the event of breach of the requirements laid down by the Regulation, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the driver who actually committed the breach in addition to or instead of the transport company?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must it be considered that a decision of a national administrative court which, instead of being based on Article 10(3) of Regulation No 561/2006, is based on national law contrary to that provision, is manifestly in breach of Union law?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2005 in Case C-287/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 2001 financial year — Detailed implementing rules)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 9 June 2005
   in Case C-287/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 2001 financial year - Detailed implementing rules)
   (2005/C 193/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-287/02: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and S. Pardo Quintillán) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 9 August 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2002/461/EC of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2001 financial year in so far as Annex I thereto includes in the amount recoverable from the Kingdom of Spain a financial correction of the accounts of the Castilla-La Mancha paying agency corresponding to the amount of the compensatory allowances;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Siegen by order of that court of 7 January 1999 in the case of Margrit Dietrich against Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Case C-11/99)

text:
C 71/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel           to run only when the assurance policy, the policy
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale), by judgment of that             conditions, and the consumer information required by
court of 13 January 1999 in the case of Echirolles                 Paragraph 10a of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association           on the Supervision of Insurance Companies) are fully
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and             available to the policy-holder, and, upon delivery of the
               Union des Libraires de France                       assurance policy, he was informed in writing, in clear
                                                                   printed form, about the right of withdrawal, the
                        (Case C-9/99)
                                                                   commencement of the period and its duration, and where
                       (1999/C 71/33)                              it is incumbent upon the insurer to prove receipt of the
                                                                   documents, and the posting of the withdrawal in good
                                                                   time is sufficient to constitute observance of the time-limit,
                                                                   but, notwithstanding this, the right of withdrawal expires
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             one year after payment of the first premium?
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale) (Court of Appeal,
Grenoble Ð Commercial Chamber) of 13 January 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Echirolles
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and
Union des Libraires de France.                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                   Siegen by order of that court of 7 January 1999 in the
                                                                    case of Margrit Dietrich against Westdeutscher Rundfunk
The Cour d'Appel de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale)                                         (Case C-11/99)
asks the Court of Justice to rule on the question whether
the French legislation requiring publishers to impose on                                   (1999/C 71/35)
booksellers fixed prices for the resale of books, regardless
of their contents, to consumers and to business purchasers
is compatible with the internal market established on
1 January 1993, und in particular with Articles 3(c) and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(g), 3a and 5, the second paragraph of Article 7a and              European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Sie-
Articles 102a and 103(3) and (4) of the Treaty establishing        gen (Labour Court, Siegen) of 7 January 1999, received at
the European Economic Community, as amended by the                 the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a preliminary
Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union.              ruling in the case of Margrit Dietrich v Westdeutscher
                                                                   Rundfunk on the following questions:
                                                                   1. On a proper interpretation of Article 2(a) of Council
                                                                        Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
                                                                        minimum safety and health requirements for work
                                                                        with display screen equipment (1), does graphic
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht,
                                                                        display' within the meaning of that provision also
Munich, by order of that court of 16 December 1998 in
                                                                        include the replay of film clips on monitors?
  the case of Feiler v Karlsruher Lebensversicherungs-AG
                       (Case C-10/99)
                       (1999/C 71/34)                              2. If not, does graphic display' within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC include
                                                                        the replay of video data files on monitors, which
                                                                        include film clips in digitalised form?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht
(Local Court), Munich, of 16 December 1998, which was
                                                                   3. If either Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the
received at the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a
                                                                        affirmative, must Article 1(3)(a) of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the case of Feiler v Karlsruher
                                                                        90/270/EEC be interpreted as meaning that control
Lebensversicherungs-AG on the following question:
                                                                        cabs for . . . machinery' within the meaning of that
                                                                        provision includes a workstation at which analogue or
                                                                        digitalised picture material is processed with the
May Article 31(1) of the Third Life Assurance Directive                 assistance of technical installations or computer
(Directive 92/96/EEC, OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1) be                     programmes?
interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the
information listed in point A of Annex II not to be
communicated to the policy-holder before the assurance             (1) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14.
contract is concluded, but for him merely to be granted a
right of withdrawal, which is to be exercised in writing
within 14 days, in circumstances where that period begins


title: Case T-349/04: Action brought on 23 August 2004 by Parfümerie Douglas GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/43

         Action brought on 23 August 2004 by Parfümerie Douglas GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-349/04)
   (2004/C 300/85)
   Language in which the application was drafted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 August 2004 by Parfümerie Douglas GmbH, whose registered office is in Hagen (Germany), represented by C. Schumann, lawyer.
   The other party before the Board of Appeal was Jürgen Heinz Douglas, Hamburg (Germany).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare admissible the action together with accompanying documents, declare that the appeal against the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 May 2004 in Case R 795/2002-4 was brought in a correct and timely manner and annul that decision, reject the notice of opposition and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for the Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark applied for:

               The word mark ‘Douglas beauty spa’ for services in Class 39 (Travel arrangement, escorting of travellers; arranging reservations for hotel rooms and other accommodation) – Application No 1 459 197

               Proprietor of the mark or sign asserted by way of opposition in the opposition proceedings:

               Jürgen Heinz Douglas

               Mark or sign asserted by way of opposition:

               The German mark ‘Douglas Touristik’ for services in Class 39 (Travel arrangement; rental of motor vehicles and boats).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the application for registration

               Decision of the Appeal Board:

               Dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Articles 42, 43, 74 and 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in conjunction with Rules 15, 16 and 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95


title: Case C-422/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases ( ‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’ ))

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)) — Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
      (Case C-422/10) (1)

      (Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases (‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’))
      (2012/C 25/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago

         Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining certificate — Whether it is possible to issue a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient or combination of active ingredients if that active ingredient or combination of active ingredients is protected by a basic patent in force within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the regulation

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other requirements laid down in Article 3 are also met, that provision does not preclude the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on, where the medicinal product for which the marketing authorisation is submitted in support of the supplementary protection certificate application contains not only that active ingredient but also other active ingredients.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-125/09: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Gruener Janura v OHIM — Centum Aqua Marketing (Hundertwasser)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/66

      Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Gruener Janura v OHIM — Centum Aqua Marketing (Hundertwasser)
      (Case T-125/09) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/120)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case T-378/04: Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/21

         Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-378/04)
   (2004/C 314/52)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH, established in Willstätt (Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 – R 909/2002-4 – Orsay (word/figurative mark)/D'ORSAY (word/figurative mark) and Decision 2562/2002 of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 August 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought by application No 1 042 605 was refused for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’, on the ground of Opposition No B 242 075;

               —

               declare that the Community trade mark ‘Orsay’ sought by application No 1 042 605 is to be registered by OHIM for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’ in Class 25;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘Orsay’ for goods in Class 23 (yarns and threads, etc.), Class 24 (clothing etc.) and Class 25 (headgear), application No 1 042 605

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refusal to register the mark applied for

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

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


title: Case C-363/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 3 June 1999 in the case of Koninklĳke KPN Nederland NV, formerly known as Koninklĳke PTT Nederland NV, v The Benelux Trade Marks Office

text:
19.2.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/11
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                    1. IV.(a) Must the Benelux Trade Mark Office which, under
                                                                            the Protocol of 2 December 1992 amending the uniform
                        (First Chamber)                                     Benelux law on trade marks (Trb. 1993, 12) (‘BMW’), is
                                                                            charged with assessment of applications for registration
                                                                            on the strict grounds as laid down in Article 3(1) in
                     of 18 November 1999
                                                                            conjunction with Article 2 of the First Council Directive
                                                                            89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
in Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of                      laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
                the European Communities (1)                                1989 L 40, p. 1), have regard not only to the sign as per
                                                                            the application for registration but to all relevant facts and
 (Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                    circumstances known to it including those of which it was
                                                                            informed by the applicant (for example that the applicant
                         (2000/C 47/18)                                     prior to the application already used the sign on a large
                                                                            scale as a trade mark of the relevant product or that it
                                                                            appears on inquiry that the sign intended for the goods
                   (Language of the case: French)                           and/or services mentioned in the application will not be
                                                                            capable of misleading the public)?
In Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and V. Akri-
tidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                 2. V. Does the reply to Question IV (a) apply also to the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt and C. Medernach,                   assessment of the Benelux Trade Marks Office concerning
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the order of the                    the question whether its objections to registration of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                  application have been lifted, as well as to its decision to
Chamber) of 21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97 Progoulis                    refuse registration in whole or in part, as provided for in
v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 1-A-521 and II-1569, seeking                     Article 6 bis (4) of the BMW?
to have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of              3. VI. Does the reply to Question IV (a) also apply to the
the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,                judicial assessment of the application referred to in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 Article 6 ter of the BMW?
18 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                         4. IX. (a) In light of the provisions of Article 6(5) B(2) of the
2. Mr Nicolaos Progoulis is ordered to pay the costs.                       Treaty of Paris, do the marks which under Article 3(1)(c)
                                                                            of the directive are not to be registered or, if registered,
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   may be declared invalid, also include marks consisting of
                                                                            signs or names which may serve in commerce to indicate
                                                                            the brand, quality, quantity, designation, value, place of
                                                                            origin or date of manufacture of the goods or provisions
                                                                            of the service or other characteristics of the goods or
                                                                            services even if that configuration is not the only or most
                                                                            usual indication? Does it make any difference in that
                                                                            connection whether there are many or only a few competi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
                                                                            tors who may have an interest in using such indications
’s-Gravenhage by order of that court of 3 June 1999 in
                                                                            (cf. judgment of the Benelux Court of 19 January 1981, NJ
the case of Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV, formerly
                                                                            1981, 294, in P. Ferrero & Co S.p.A v Alfred Ritter
known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV, v The Benelux
                                                                            Schokoladefabrik GmbH (Kinder)).
                      Trade Marks Office
                        (Case C-363/99)
                                                                            Is it also relevant that under Article 13C of the BMW the
                         (2000/C 47/19)                                     right to a trade mark expressed in one of the national or
                                                                            regional languages of the Benelux area automatically
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      extends to its translation in another of those languages?
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te
’s-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of
3 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 October
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koninklijke KPN            5. X. (a) In the assessment of the question whether a sign
Nederland NV, formerly known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland                   consisting of a (new) word made up of components, which
NV, v The Benelux Trade Marks Office on the following                       in themselves have no distinctive character in regard to the
questions:                                                                  goods or services for which the application is made,
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/12               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.2.2000
   answers the description given in Article 2 of the directive           9. XIII. (a) Is it consistent with the scheme of the directive
   (and Article 1 of the BMW ) of a mark, must a (new) word                   and the Treaty of Paris for a sign to be registered for
   of that kind in principle be taken to have a distinctive                   specific goods or services subject to the limitation that the
   character?                                                                 registration applies only to those goods and services in so
                                                                              far as they do not possess a specific characteristic or
                                                                              characteristics (for example, registration of the sign ‘Post-
6. X. (b) If not, must a word of that kind (leaving aside                     kantoor’ for the services: direct-mail campaigns and the
   familiarity through naturalisation) in principle be taken to               issue of franking seals ‘so long as they are not connected
   have no distinctive character, and that that may be                        with a post office’)?
   otherwise only under attendant circumstances which result
   in the combination being more than the sum of its parts?              10. XVI. Is it also material to the answer to be given to the
                                                                              questions whether a corresponding sign for such goods or
                                                                              services is registered as a mark in another Member State?
   Is it of any importance in that connection whether the sign
   is the only or at any rate an obvious term for indicating
   the relevant characteristic or (combination of) character-
   istics, or whether there are synonyms which may reason-
   ably also be used, or that the word indicates a commercially
   essential or rather an incidental attribute of the product or
   service?                                                              Action brought on 9 October 1999 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
   Is it also relevant that under Article 13C of the BMW the
   right to a trade mark expressed in one of the national or                                       (Case C-382/99)
   regional languages of the Benelux area automatically
   extends to its translation in another of those languages?                                        (2000/C 47/20)
7. XI. Does the mere fact that a descriptive sign is also lodged         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
   for registration as a mark for goods and/or services of               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
   which the sign is not descriptive warrant an assessment               Communities on 9 October 1999 by the Kingdom of the
   that the sign thereby has distinctive character as regards            Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
   those goods and/or services (for example the sign ‘Postkan-           pean Law Section of the Legal Affairs Department of the
   toor’ for furniture)?                                                 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agent.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
   If not, in answering the question whether such descriptive
   sign has distinctive character for such goods and/or                  (1) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision
   services, must regard be had to the possibility that, in light             (C(1999) 2539 final) of 20 July 1999 — notified on
   of its descriptive meaning or meanings, (a part of) the                    5 August 1999 — concerning State aid granted by the
   public will not perceive that sign as a distinctive sign for               Netherlands with regard to 633 Netherlands petrol stations
   (all or some) of those goods or services?                                  in the region bordering Germany;
                                                                         (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
8. XII. (a) In the assessment of the abovementioned questions
   is significance to be attached to the fact that, since the
   Benelux countries have chosen to have applications for                Pleas in law and main arguments
   registration of trade marks examined by the Benelux Trade             — Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, of the de minimis rule (1)
   Marks Office as a requirement of registration, the appraisal               and of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and
   policy of the Office under Article 6 bis of the BMW                        the protection of legitimate expectations, together with
   according to the common commentary of the Govern-                          failure to comply with the obligation, laid down by
   ments ‘must be a cautious and restrained one whereby all                   Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of reasons, all of
   concerns of commercial life must be taken into account                     the foregoing in connection with the categorical refusal to
   and efforts must be focused on establishing which are the                  approve the aid as de minimis aid granted in respect of
   evidently inadmissible applications and refusing them’?                    each individual petrol station where it was applied for by
                                                                              the operator of more than one petrol station: provided that
   If so, under what rules does it fall to be determined whether              the de minimis amount is not made available more than
   an application is ‘evidently inadmissible’?                                once in respect of each individual petrol station, it makes
                                                                              no difference, from an economic standpoint (i.e. as regards
                                                                              trade and competition between Member States), whether
        It is assumed that in contentious invalidity proceedings              the 633 subsidised petrol stations are invariably to be
        (which may be initiated after registration of a sign) in              regarded as separate undertakings or whether, in certain
        pleading invalidity of the sign in respect of which                   cases, they form part of a larger economic entity. Cus-
        registration as a mark was applied for there is no                    tomers will be guided by the brand of petrol offered for
        additional requirement that the sign be ‘evidently                    sale and — above all — by the petrol pump price. A
        inadmissible’.                                                        subsidy granted on a pro rata basis according to the


title: Case C-7/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission (Appeal — Community Customs Code — Articles 220(2) and 239 — Refund of import duties — Import of preserved mushrooms from China — Decision declaring the refund of import duties unjustified)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
   (Case C-7/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community Customs Code - Articles 220(2) and 239 - Refund of import duties - Import of preserved mushrooms from China - Decision declaring the refund of import duties unjustified))
   (2015/C 171/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, Rechtsanwalte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.14.


title: Case T-23/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Barnett v EESC

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/50

         Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Barnett v EESC
   (Case T-23/17)
   (2017/C 104/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               first of all, annul the decision of 21 March 2016, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015, excluding the applicant from early retirement without reduction of her pension rights;

               —

               in the alternative, order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the applicant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of material damage suffered by her plus default interest calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered by her;

               —

               in any event, order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in so far as the defendant failed to take account of the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC (F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107) (‘the CST judgment’), for the purposes of adopting enforcement measures. In particular, it is apparent from the grounds for the contested decision that the defendant diverged from the criteria set out in its general implementing provisions (GIP) in order to carry out the alleged re-examination of the applicant’s application. In any event, the contested decision does not remedy the unlawfulness found by the Civil Service Tribunal, namely the lack of identification of the interest of the service in the GIP of the EESC.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment of the interest of the service allegedly existing in 2013.

               3.

               Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that the EESC is not competent to adopt a new decision relating to the grant of early retirement without reduction of pension rights following the deletion of article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Statute, by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15). As a consequence, as a result of the unlawfulness found in the CST judgment, the applicant was definitively deprived of the possibility of benefitting from the measure at issue. It is, therefore, necessary to fully compensate her.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 May 1997 in Case T-6/96: Thémistocle Contargyris v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Rejection of application for a post - Article 19 (1) of the Council's rules of procedure - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Power of the Secretary-General of the Council to adopt decisions rejecting an application for a post and a complaint - Notice of vacancy - Manifest error of assessment - Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to provide a statement of reasons - Misuse of powers)

text:
No C 212/26            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 7 . 97
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      Brussels,     represented     by    Jean-Noel  Louis,  Thierry
                                                                       Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue de Cessange, v. Council of
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                      the European Union ( Agents : Jean-Paul Jacqué and Denis
                                                                       Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the decision
                                                                       of the Secretary-General of the Council of 3 May 1995
                                                                       rejecting the applicant's application for a grade A 1 post
                                                                       in    the  Directorate-General       for Economic  and    Social
                                                                       Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture, and
                          of 28 May 1997                               Audiovisual Media ( DG J ), and of the decision of the
      in Case T-59/96: Jean-Louis Burban v. European                   Secretary-General of the Council of 7 November 1995
                           Parliament ( 1 )                            rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. García
(Officials — Delay in drawing up staff reports — Action
                                                                       Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
for damages — Admissibility — Maladministration —
                                                                       A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                 Loss)
                                                                       judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:
                           ( 97/C 212/49
               (Language of the case: French)                          1 . dismisses the application;
In Case T-59/96 : Jean-Louis Burban, an official of the                2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Parliament, residing in Paris, represented by
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             C ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Yannis
Pantalis, Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic ) —
application for compensation for the material and non
material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of
delay in the drawing up of his staff reports for the periods
1991 — 1992 and        1993— 1994 — the         Court of First            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                                            of 3 June 1997
President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                       in Case T- 196/95 : H v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities O
judgment on 28 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                        (Officials — Compulsory retirement — Establishment and
 1 . orders the Parliament to pay the applicant damages in              tasks of the Invalidity Committee — Articles 53 and 59
     the sum of Bfrs 200 000;                                           (2) of the Staff Regulations — Notification of the
                                                                                decision)
2 . orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/51
 n OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case T-l 96/95 : H, a former official of the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              represented initially by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
                                                                       Jacques Sambon and subsequently by Lucette Defalque, of
                          of 29 May 1997                                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 in Case T-6/96: Théistocle Contargyris v. Council of the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                       European Union (')                               Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
 (Officials — Rejection of application for a post —                     Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
 Article 19 (1) of the Council's rules of procedure —                   application for annulment of the Invalidity Committee 's
 Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Power of the                     opinion of 13 September 1994, of the Commission's
 Secretary-General of the Council to adopt decisions                    decision of 27 September 1994 compulsorily retiring the
 rejecting an application for a post and a complaint —                  applicant and of the Commission's decision of 27 June
 Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of assessment —                      1995 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the
 Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to             former decision — the Court of First Instance (Third
     provide a statement of reasons — Misuse of powers)                 Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
                                                                        Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                             97/ C 212/50
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         3 June 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-6/96 : Théistocle Contargyris, a former official              1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
  of the Council of the European Union, residing in                           seeks annulment, first, of the decision of 27 June 1995


title: Case T-24/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/35

         Action brought on 19 January 2015 — NICO v Council
   (Case T-24/15)
   (2015/C 089/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of fundamental right to property.
   The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, including the right to effective judicial protection. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd as designated by the Council, as this company no longer exists in Jersey and does not exist in Iran; and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested acts. Finally, by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

      (1)  OJ L 325, p. 19.

      (2)  OJ L 325, p. 3.


title: Case C-485/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to Ellinika Nafpigeia AE — Incompatibility with the common market — Recovery — Non-execution)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-485/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to Ellinika Nafpigeia AE - Incompatibility with the common market - Recovery - Non-execution)
   2012/C 258/06
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Milonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents, V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on aid C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA (notified under number C(2008) 3118) (OJ 2008 L 225, p. 104)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary in order to implement Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on aid C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA, and by failing to provide the information listed in Article 19 of that decision to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 19 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-39/04: Actionbrought on 5 February 2004 by Orsay GmbH againstthe Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/69

         Action brought on 5 February 2004 by Orsay GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-39/04)
   (2004/C 106/140)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 February 2004 by Orsay GmbH, Willstätt (Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer.
   José Jiménez Arellano S.A., Madrid, was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 394/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 November 2003 and Decision 405/2002 of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought in Application No 1 042 613 in respect of articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear was refused on the basis of Opposition No B 242 059;

               —

               declare that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is to register the mark ‘O orsay’, sought in Application No 1 042 613 as a Community trade mark in respect of articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear in Class 25;

               —

               order the office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings and of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               The figurative mark ‘O orsay’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 25 (yarn, woven and knitted fabric; bed and table covers; articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear) – Application No 1 042 613

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               José Jiménez Arellano S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The Spanish and Portuguese figurative mark ‘D'ORSAY’ for, inter alia, goods in Class 25

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refusal of the application for registration in respect of the goods ‘articles of clothing; boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’. Rejection of the remainder of the opposition.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The Office's decision was adopted in breach of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           There can be no likelihood of confusion in aural terms where the opposed marks ‘O orsay’ and ‘D'ORSAY’ are compared.

                           —

                           Both a likelihood of confusion as a result of the typography and a likelihood of association can be ruled out.


title: Case C-176/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2014  — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België (Belgium) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap
   (Case C-176/14)
   2014/C 235/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans

      Defendant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 10 of Annex I of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, ‘on the free movement of persons’, together with Annexes I, II and III, the protocols and the Final Act, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (1), be interpreted as meaning that it seeks the exclusion of the same positions as Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               Must Article 14 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (2) of 25 November 2003‘concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents’ be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a specific exclusion of an economic activity on the basis of Article 14(3), a long-term resident of another Member State will gain unlimited access to the Belgian labour market, including to positions which, on the basis of Article 11(1)(a) or Article 11(3)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC, could be denied to long-term residents of Belgium, or to positions from which EEA nationals could also be excluded pursuant to Article 45(4) TFEU or Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

               3.

               Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (3)‘on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963’ be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘any paid employment of his choice’, ‘any paid employment of their choice’ and ‘any offer of employment’ also cover all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply by analogy to the application of those provisions?

               4.

               Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker who comply with all the conditions laid down in that provision, regardless of their nationality, also have access to all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply to them by analogy?

               5.

               Can the national court, in a judicial appeal brought by a citizen against a measure of general application which, in conformity with Decision No 1/80, but contrary to higher national provisions, gives Turkish workers and their families access to certain positions in the public service, have recourse to that Decision, given that that Decision has not been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union?

               6.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to the previous question if the applicant relies on his functional role as a member of the Flemish Parliament in that regard, so that he cannot be equated with an ordinary legal subject?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

      (3)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.


title: Case C-436/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Efrosyni Alexiadou (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water-repellent leather — Repayment of advance paid — Interest)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Efrosyni Alexiadou
   (Case C-436/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water-repellent leather - Repayment of advance paid - Interest)
   (2009/C 6/12)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Efrosyni Alexiadou (represented by: Ch. Matellas and E. Alexiadou, lawyers)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007] ECR II-86, in which the Court dismissed an action under an arbitration clause seeking an order that the defendant reimburse the amount of the advance paid by the Commission under a contract concerning a technological development programme relating to the production of water-repellent leather (Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2007 in Case T-312/05 Commission v Alexiadou [2007], which was notified to the Commission on 18 July 2007;

               2.

               Orders that the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-308/12: Action brought on 26 June 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/7

         Action brought on 26 June 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-308/12)
   2012/C 273/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, D. Düsterhaus and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a periodic penalty payment for failure to comply with its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures for transposing Directive 2008/98/EC, at a daily rate of EUR 67 314,24 calculated from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2008/98/EC had to be transposed expired on 12 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.


title: Case C-524/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2006 — Heinz Huber v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2006 — Heinz Huber v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-524/06)
   (2007/C 56/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinz Huber

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred
   Is the general processing of personal data of foreign citizens of the Union in a central register of foreign nationals compatible with

               (a)

               the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality against citizens of the Union who exercise their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (first paragraph of Article 12 EC in conjunction with Articles 17 EC and 18(1) EC),

               (b)

               the prohibition of restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State (first paragraph of Article 43 EC),

               (c)

               the requirement of necessity under Article 7(e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1)?

      (1)   OJ L 281, 1995, p. 31.


title: Case C-126/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Refusal to register the word mark ecoDoor — Characteristic of a part of a product)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-126/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Refusal to register the word mark ecoDoor - Characteristic of a part of a product))
   2014/C 315/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Case T-101/09: Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Maftah v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/26

         Action brought on 1 September 2010 — Maftah v Commission
   (Case T-101/09)
   ()
   2011/C 13/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elmabruk Maftah (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and A. McMurdie, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 (1) insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to immediately remove the applicant from the annex to the said regulation; and

               —

               Order the defendant and/or the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant and any sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008, insofar as the name of the applicant has been placed on the list of persons and entities to which certain restrictive measures were imposed.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission has failed to independently review the basis of the applicant’s inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) at any point, or required any reasons or evidence for that inclusion.

               In addition, the Commission has failed to provide to the applicant with any reasons at all and then failed to provide any adequate reasons justifying his inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 in breach of his right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to defend himself and in breach of his rights to property under the European Convention on Human Rights.

               Finally, the continued inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is irrational given that: (i) there were and are no reasons available which would satisfy the relevant criteria for inclusion in the said annex; (ii) the United Kingdom’s government’s position is that the applicant no longer fulfils the relevant criteria; and (iii) the judgments by a specialized UK Court that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has not merged with the Al-Qaida network and/or every person associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has an Al-Qaida violent global jihadist ideology.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).


title: Case T-51/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission (ESF — Training operations — Reduction in financial assistance initially granted — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Time-bar — Legal certainty — Rights of the defence — Reasonable period — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission
   (Case T-51/11) (1)

   (ESF - Training operations - Reduction in financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Time-bar - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Reasonable period - Duty to state reasons)
   2013/C 156/69
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented initially by: J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro and subsequently by: L. Pinto Monteiro, P. Farinha Alves and N. Morais Sarmento, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Decision C(88) 831 of 29 April 1988 for the funding of training operations (file 88 0369 P1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-22/17: Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/49

         Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-22/17)
   (2017/C 104/69)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), which excludes from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 1 999 810,30 in relation to expenditure declared by Portugal on the measure ‘Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries’, in the financial years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 31(4)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds. That plea is divided into three arguments.

                           —

                           In the first argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not provide evidence of serious and reasonable doubt;

                           —

                           In the second argument, the applicant submits that the guidelines set out in the document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997 are not applicable to the present case;

                           —

                           In the third argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not align the imputed facts with the requirements for the 5 % financial correction provided for in Document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997.


title: Removal from the register of C-146/95

text:
1 . 11 . 97             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /17
Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                            Removal from the register of C-145/95 ( J )
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                              ( 97/C 331/34 )
                              Luxembourg
                             Case C-339/97 )                            By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 97/C 331/33 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/95 ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ( Rome
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     District Magistrates ' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
Communities on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                      Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur                    Commune di Naviglio.
Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez                 (>) OJ C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 146/95 ( 1 )
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,        regulations                                  ( 97/C 331 /35 )
       and administrative provisions necessary         to comply
       with Commission Directive 94/1 5/EC of 15       April 1994       By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
       adapting to technical progress for the           first time      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
       Council    Directive      90/220/EEC  on   the    deliberate     from the register of Case C-146/95 ( Reference for a
       release into the environment of genetically modified             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       organisms (*) and Commission Directive 94/5 1/EC of              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto (Rome
       7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                   District Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
       Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
                                                                        Commune di Torino .
       genetically modified micro-organisms (2 ), the Grand
       Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives;                              H OJ C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
       costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-3 17/95 H
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /36 )
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 By order of 8 August 1997, the President of the Court of
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
transposition expired on 30 June 1994 (Directive 94/15/                 from the register of Case C-3 17/95 ( Reference for a
EC ) and 30 April 1995 ( Directive 94/51 /EC ).                         preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
                                                                        ( Council of State, Greece )): Canadane Cheese Trading
(') OJ L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .                                  AMBA, Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 )
( 2 ) OJ L297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p. 29 .                                 Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social
( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                               Security, and (4 ) Agriculture.
                                                                        (') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case T-72/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Hippler v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/51

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Hippler v Commission
   (Case T-72/15) (1)

   (2015/C 320/71)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-45/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Application to suspend adoption — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission
   (Case T-45/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Application to suspend adoption - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 205/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Hydrex NV (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as agents)

      Re

   Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, relating to recovery order No 3241405101issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 5 40  721,10.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2)

               The costs are reserved.