title: Case C-231/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others
   (Case C-231/16)
   (2016/C 279/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck KGaA

      Defendants: Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘same cause of action’ in Article 109(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as applying to the maintenance and use of a worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, on account of which actions for infringement between the same parties have been brought before the courts of different Member States, one action being for infringement of an EU trade mark and the other being for infringement of a national trade mark?

               2.

               Must the term ‘same cause of action’ in Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as applying to the maintenance and use of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, in each case — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, on account of which actions for infringement between the same parties have been brought before the courts of different Member States, one action being for infringement of an EU trade mark and the other being for infringement of a national trade mark?

               3.

               Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that when a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State is seised of an ‘action for infringement’ of an EU trade mark through the maintenance of a worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online website under the same domain name, and claims have been put forward to it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States, it must decline jurisdiction under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 only for the territory of the other Member State in which a court had been ‘first’ seised of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (which is identical to and covers identical goods as the EU trade mark asserted before the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, or, in such a situation, must the ‘court other than the court first seised’, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, decline jurisdiction with regard to all claims put forward before it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States and therefore in relation to EU-wide claims?

               4.

               Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that when a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State is seised of an ‘action for infringement’ of an EU trade mark on account of the maintenance of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names of ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, and claims have been put forward to it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States, it must decline jurisdiction under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 only for the territory of the other Member State in which a court was ‘first’ seised of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (which is identical to and covers identical goods as the EU trade mark asserted before the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, or in such a situation must the ‘court other than the court first seised’, to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, decline jurisdiction with regard to all claims put before it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States and therefore in relation to EU-wide claims?

               5.

               Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an action –– brought before the ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State, for infringement of an EU trade mark infringement through the maintenance of a worldwide, and therefore also an EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, in which claims had initially been put forward under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States –– in relation to the territory of the other Member State in which a court was ‘first seised’ of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (that is identical to and covers identical goods as an EU trade mark asserted at the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, precludes a declining of jurisdiction by the ‘court other than the court first seised’ under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered by the marks are identical?

               6.

               Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an action –– brought before a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State, on account of infringement of an EU trade mark through the maintenance of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content of the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, with which claims had initially been made under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States –– in relation to the territory of the other Member State in which a court was first seised of a claim for infringement of a national mark (that is identical to and covers identical goods as an EU trade mark asserted at the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names of ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, precludes a declining of jurisdiction by the ‘court other than the court first seised’ under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered by the marks are identical?

               7.

               Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the wording ‘where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for identical goods or services’ that, in a situation where the marks are identical, the ‘court other than the court first seised’ is without jurisdiction only in so far as the EU trade mark and the earlier national trade mark are registered for the same goods and/or services, or is the ‘court other than the court first seised’entirely without jurisdiction, even when the EU trade mark asserted before that court also protects additional goods and/or services that are not protected by the other national mark, for which the contested acts may be identical or similar?

      (1)  OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1.


C 34/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.2.2000
In those circumstances, the Commission finds that the Italian               United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community               that Directive, and
law.
                                                                       — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
                                                                       Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
                                                                       a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                       on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                       laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 March
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Commission                    1998 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
                                                                       visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
of the European Communities against the United
                                                                       the conclusions of the Commission.
                            Kingdom
                        (Case C-468/99)                                (1) on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated
                                                                           terphenyls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
                         (2000/C 34/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          Removal from the register of Case C-90/99 (1)
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                                     (2000/C 34/38)
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
                                                                       By order of 22 October 1999 the President of the Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-90/99: Commission of the
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                       European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 (1) or
    in any event not informing the Commission thereof, the             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case F-99/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/42

         Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission
   (Case F-99/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Michael Ashbrook (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decisions, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, and claim for compensation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decisions, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for January 2010 and the months thereafter, and in their slips concerning arrears of salary for 2009, in so far as those decisions apply a rate of adjustment of 1,85 % instead of a rate of 3,7 %;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of Regulation No 1296/09 until the date of delivery of judgment in this case and the amount which should have been paid to them if the adjustment had been calculated correctly, together with interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable in the periods concerned, plus 3,5 percentage points, for the period starting with the date on which sums principally claimed were due;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1995 by Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-89/95)

text:
No C 137/34           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
      determine, or state reasons for, the total amount of the        Action brought on 27 March 1995 by Expeditie- en
      fines imposed, and, in particular, the amount of the fine       Controlebedrijf Codirex BV against the Commission of the
      imposed on the applicant.                                                           European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-89/95 )
(') OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                                                       ( 95/C 137/75 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 23 March 1995 by Blue Circle Industries             Communities was brought before the Court of First
pic against the Commission of the European                            Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1995
                           Communities                                by Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV, Rotterdam,
                                                                      represented by P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the
                        ( Case T-88/95 )
                                                                      Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                          ( 95/C 137/74 )                             at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe .
               (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European                      ( a ) declare the action admissible;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 1995                 ( b ) annul the decision or measure adopted by the
by Blue Circle Industries pic , represented by Mr Jeremy                    Commission on 14 November 1994 in relation to the
Lever QC ., Mr Nicholas Green, Ms Jessica Simor, Ms Laura                   Netherlands ( reference No REM : 15/94 );
Mc Roberts, Ms Sara Vaughan with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Elvinger & Hoss , 15 , Cote             (c ) order the Commission to pay the costs .
d'Eich, L-1450 Luxembourg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the Commission's Decision 94/815/EC (cases
                                                                      Between 19 February 1981 and 23 June 1983 the applicant,
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ) void and annul it in              as a customs forwarding agent, prepared declarations
    its entirety,
                                                                      relating to the import of poultry sections . By reason of
                                                                      subsequently discovered fraud on the part of the importer,
                                                                      the Netherlands customs authorities demanded from the
— in the alternative annul those parts of the Decision that
    the Court considers erroneous or unsafe and reduce the
                                                                      applicant payment of the outstanding additional
                                                                      agricultural levies . The applicant thereupon lodged an
    fine imposed on Blue Circle accordingly, and
                                                                      application for reimbursement pursuant to Article 13 of
                                                                      Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 June 1979 ( 1 ).
— order the Commission to pay Blue Circle's costs .                   The Netherlands submitted that application to the
                                                                      Commission, which held, in its contested decision, that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   remission of the import duties was not justified .
The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to               The action, which has been brought under Article 173 of the
establish to the requisite legal standard , that is to a degree of    EC Treaty, is based inter alia on the following grounds:
certainty that goes beyond any reasonable doubt, that the
allegations made against it are well founded .                       — infringement of the Commission's procedural rules, in
                                                                           that the decision was not signed by the Commissioner
Secondly, the applicant maintains that the Decision was                    responsible for customs matters,
adopted on the basis of an incorrect procedure and an
incorrect approach to the evidence. In its submission, the           — infringement of the right to a fair hearing . As the party
Decision should be annulled , because the errors of                        directly entitled to the benefit of remission of
procedure — by their very nature — throw serious doubt on                  agricultural levies, the applicant should have been heard
the validity of the Decision and cannot be rectified at this               in the proceedings,
stage .
                                                                     — infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC )
Subsidiarily, the applicant contests the level of the fine; it             No 1430/79 . The Commission wrongly concluded that
contends on that score that the Commission has erred in its
                                                                           no special situation had arisen within the meaning of
determination of the duration and gravity of the                           that provision. The applicant refers in that regard to the
infringements and in its finding that all of the infringements             following circumstances : discrepancy between the
were intentional and serious .
                                                                           principles underlying the applicable Netherlands rules
                                                                           and the Community rules in the matter, the acceptable
                                                                           nature of the invoice values in relation to the market
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/35
     prices prevailing at the time and the fact that it was             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     impossible for a forwarding agent to verify the accuracy
     of answers given in declarations,                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— breach of the principle of proportionality. The                       The applicant, a former Commission official suffering total
     obligation deemed by the decision to be incumbent on               permanent invalidity, criticizes the Commission for failing
     the forwarding agent, requiring him to examine the                 to disclose to him certain detail concerning his state of
     accuracy of the information supplied by the client for the         health, in particular for not advising him in due time of the
     purposes of the declaration and to ensure that the client          illness diagnosed by its doctors, and for keeping him in a
     is not acting fraudulently, is disproportionate,                   post incompatible with his state of health .
— infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
                                                                        He states that, being afflicted with an obstructive
     on Human Rights .
                                                                        bronco-pneumopathic condition, the applicant applied for
(M OJ No L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                        retirement on grounds of invalidity under the second
                                                                        paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and it was
                                                                        not until 27 March 1987, nearly six years after being lodged,
                                                                        that that application was examined by the Invalidity
                                                                        Committee, which concluded that he was not suffering from
Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Walter Gill against                  an occupational illness . It was only during that procedure
        the Commission of the European Communities                      that the applicant learned that the Commission's medical
                                                                        officers had , in particular when examining him prior to
                          ( Case T-90/95 )                              recruitment, diagnosed a chronic pulmonary illness .
                            ( 95/C 137/76 )
                                                                        He claims in particular, in that regard, that, by failing to
                 (Language of the case: French)                         inform him or his doctor of the results of the examinations
                                                                        carried out by its doctors, the Commission unlawfully
An action against the Commission of the European                        deprived him of the opportunity of deciding, in full
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       knowledge of the facts , whether or not to accept
Instance of the European Communities on 29 March 1995                   employment of a kind which might aggravate his state of
by Walter Gill, of Sudbury (United Kingdom ), represented               health .
by Jean-Noel Louis , Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     Furthermore, in view of the incoherence of the statement of
                                                                        the reasons on which the successive decisions of the
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener .                                                              appointing authority were based and the changes in the
                                                                        versions thereof occurring in the course of the various
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            procedures, there was what in reality amounted to a total
                                                                        lack of any statement of reasons .
— annul the Commission decision of 26 September 1994
     expressly rejecting his claim for compensation of                  Finally, since the appointing authority did not supply to the
     10 May 1994 under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff                    applicant, despite an express request from his adviser,
     Regulations,                                                       specific information regarding the measures adopted by it in
                                                                        order to preserve his anonymity, and having regard to the
— annul, so far as necessary, the Commission decision of                documents     disclosed     to  him  in  the  course   of the
     28 December 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and             pre-litigation procedure , the applicant can but conclude that
     his more detailed complaint,                                       no proper measure was taken and that his right to respect of
                                                                        his private life was scornfully disregarded by the
— order the defendant:                                                  administration .
     — to pay, by way of compensation for material and
          non-material          damage      suffered      through
          non-disclosure of information as to his state of
          health, a sum equal to eight years ' remuneration to
          which he would have been entitled if he had not been
                                                                        Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          obliged , as a result of the successive wrongful acts         Christiane Impens against the Council of the European
          committed , to apply for retirement on grounds of                                            Union
          invalidity,
                                                                                ( Case T-91/95 )
     — to pay compensatory interest on that sum at the rate                                      ( 95/C 137/77 )
          of 8 % per annum as from the date of his
          application,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     — to pay the applicant the sum of ECU 10 000 , by way
          of redress for the non-material damage suffered as a          An action against the Council of the European Union was
          result of the fact that, without reservation and              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
          against his will, his application and complaint were          Communities on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          made public,                                                  Christiane Impens, of Wolvertem and Brussels (Belgium ),


title: Case T-402/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Katalagarianakis v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Katalagarianakis v Commission
   (Case T-402/03) (1)

   (2008/C 197/61)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: Case C-414/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Reduction of financial assistance — General allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises — Deadline for completion of investment projects — Discretion of the Commission)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-414/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - General allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises - Deadline for completion of investment projects - Discretion of the Commission)
   2010/C 134/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Basilicata v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) dismissed its application for, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1 and, second, damages for the harm purportedly caused by that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-229/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by GE.AL.VE. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/15

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by GE.AL.VE. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-229/13 P)
   2013/C 207/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: GE.AL.VE. Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-384/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht St Pölten): D. v W. (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Supply by a doctor approved as a court expert of an opinion in a paternity dispute)

text:
25.11.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 335/5
the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                   of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Sep-                of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
tember 2000, in which it has ruled:                                          L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
                                                                             President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the
1.    Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92             Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
      of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated adminis-                M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      tration and control system for certain Community aid schemes,          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      coupled with the general principles of Community law, allow            on 14 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
      the competent authority, after balancing the respective interests
      of the persons concerned, to disclose data relating to crops sown
      during the preceding years, and which have been supplied by or         Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
      on behalf of a former claimant for payment under the arable            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      area payment scheme, to a new farmer who has need of those             States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
      data in order to be able to apply for such payments in respect of      tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that
      the same fields and who is unable otherwise to obtain them.            it does not apply to services consisting, not in providing care to
                                                                             persons by diagnosing and treating a disease or any other health
2.    In the event of refusal to disclose the information requested, the     disorder, but in establishing the genetic affinity of individuals through
      competent authority cannot, on the basis of the information            biological tests. The fact that the doctor acting as expert was
      which it did not provide to the applicant at the time of the           instructed by a court is irrelevant in that regard.
      application, impose penalties on him under Article 9 of
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
      1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated
      administration and control system for certain Community aid
      schemes.
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-16/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 14 September 2000
                                                                             the Cour Administrative): Ministre de la Santé v Jeff
                                                                                Erpelding (1)
in Case C-384/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
            the Landesgericht St Pölten): D. v W. (1)
                                                                             (Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Interpretation of Articles
                                                                             10 and 19 — Use of the title of specialist doctor in the host
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions                   Member State by a doctor who has obtained in another
— Supply by a doctor approved as a court expert of an                        Member State a qualification not included as regards that
                                                                                State on the list in Article 7 of the directive)
                  opinion in a paternity dispute)
                           (2000/C 335/09)                                                              (2000/C 335/10)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht St                 In Case C-16/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pölten (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour Administrat-
pending before that court between D. and W., intervener:                     ive, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Osterreichischer Bundesschatz — on the interpretation of                     pending before that court between Ministre de la Santé and
Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)                Jeff Erpelding — on the interpretation of Council Directive


title: Case C-356/01: Action brought on 20 September 2001 by the Republic of Austria by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 317/19
b.    Breach of the principle of proportionality in that partial              of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession 1994 (1) and full
      access to the documents in question has not been granted                award of ecopoints for the year 2001.
      or even considered;
                                                                        —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
c.    Breach of the principle that an application for access to
      documents must be considered with regard to each
      individual document;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
d.   Failure in the duty to state reasons;
e.   Failure to apply objectivity and equality in considering
      the Appellant’s interest in having access to the documents;       (Main plea)
f.    Breach of the duty of independent review;                         Infringement of the EC Treaty or Protocol No 9 to the Act of
                                                                        Accession 1994 by definitively refusing the request under the
g.    Misuse of power; and                                              second paragraph of Article 232 EC. The Commission wrongly
                                                                        seeks to deduct journeys declared as transit journeys in respect
h.    Failure to comply with the duty to co-operate.                    of which there is no information on departure (92 816 ), and
                                                                        journeys declared as transit journeys where both entry and
                                                                        departure were effected at the same border point (54 386 ),
(1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 32.                                        from the number of transit journeys declared overall for the
(2) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43.                                               year 2000 (1 696 794 ). The ecopoint system under Protocol
(3) OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58.                                                No 9 to the Act of Accession 1994 is based on the principle
                                                                        of declarations. Accordingly, if journeys are clearly declared by
                                                                        a driver as transit journeys, they fall within the ecopoint
                                                                        statistics and are relevant to whether the 108 % threshold has
                                                                        been exceeded; this is the point at which the Commission is
                                                                        bound under Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9, in conjunction
                                                                        with Annex 5(3) thereof, to adopt certain measures, namely to
                                                                        reduce the number of ecopoints the following year according
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by the Republic of                  to a calculation method laid down in the Annex to the
Austria by the Commission of the European Communities                   Protocol. It cannot, in the light of the principle of declarations,
                                                                        be for the Republic of Austria, either legally or factually, to
                         (Case C-356/01)                                provide evidence in each individual case that, where a journey
                                                                        is clearly declared to be a transit journey, such a transit journey
                                                                        actually took place. The Republic of Austria merely has to
                         (2001/C 317/35)                                deduct journeys declared to be transit journeys where it is
                                                                        beyond doubt that, despite a clear declaration, there cannot
                                                                        have been a transit journey (which is the case in respect of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        9 210 nbsp;statistically proven journeys on trains for the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        carriage of heavy goods vehicles). The result is therefore clearly
Communities on 20 September 2001 by the Republic of
                                                                        that the 108 % threshold was exceeded in the year 2000. In
Austria represented by Dr Harald Dossi, of the Administrative
                                                                        the light of its decision of 25 July 2001, the Commission
Service of the Federal Chancellor’s Office of the Republic of
                                                                        therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 9 to the
Austria with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        Act of Accession 1994, in particular its obligations under
of the Ambassador Dr Christian Strohal, Austrian Embassy,
                                                                        Article 11(2)(c) in conjunction with Article 16 and Annex 5(3)
3 rue des Bains.
                                                                        to that Protocol, and that it has therefore created grounds for
                                                                        annulment for infringement of the EC Treaty and/or Protocol
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             No 9 of the Act of Accession 1994 pursuant to the second
                                                                        paragraph of Article 230 EC Treaty.
—     Annul the negative opinion of the Commission of 25 July
      2001 definitively refusing the Republic of Austria’s
      request under the second paragraph of Article 232 EC to           (In the alternative)
      the Commission to act.
—    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or Protocol No 9 to the Act
                                                                        of Accession 1994. The applicant refers to the first plea in law
                                                                        in relation to the grounds for its observations.
In the alternative the Republic of Austria claims that the Court
should
                                                                        (1) Protocol No 9 on road, rail and combined transport in Austria.
—     Declare null and void the Commission’s decision of
      25 July 2001 ordering non-application of Article 11(2)(c)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1997 in Case C-36/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Faik Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin, Günes Günaydin, Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Council of Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State' and 'legal employment' - Temporary and conditional work and residence permits - Application for extension of residence permit - Abuse of rights)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 357/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                        (First Chamber)                               Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, as
                                                                      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
                     of 25 September 1997                             30 April 1992, precludes the competent institution of a
in Case C-307/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Member State from applying on its own initiative the
the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Salvatore Baldone                 calculation rules contained in the amending Regulation to
v.    Institut  National      d'Assurance   Maladie-Invalidité        the detriment of the person concerned when the latter has,
                           (INAMI ) (»)                               before that Regulation entered into force on 1 June 1992,
                                                                      been awarded an invalidity pension in accordance with the
(Article 95 (a) of Regulation (ECC) No 1408/71 —                      provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 that were
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 — Transitional provisions                 applicable prior to that date and the decision concerning
— Recalculation of a benefit on the competent                         the pension was rectified after 31 May 1992 .
institution 's own initiative — Rights of persons concerned)
                         ( 97/C 357/01 )                              (>) OJ C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-307/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail ( Labour
Court), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the                                          of 30 September 1997
proceedings pending before that court between Salvatore               in Case C-36/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Baldone and Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invali             the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Faik Günaydin, Hatice
dité ( INAMI) — on the interpretation of Article 95 ( a ) of          Günaydin, Günes Günaydin, Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                                             Bayern ( l )
1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                     (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
                                                                      Council of Association — Freedom of movement for
members of their families moving within the Community
( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ), as               workers — Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to
amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )                     the labour force of a Member State' and 'legal
No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ),        employment' — Temporary and conditional work and
as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 of                residence permits — Application for extension of residence
30 April 1992 ( OJ L 136, 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7) — the Court                               permit — Abuse of rights)
( First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the                                        ( 97/C 357/02 )
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and P. Jann,
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 1997, in
which it has ruled :
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Article 95 (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                           published in the European Court Reports)
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                In Case C-36/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
persons and to members of their families moving within                of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/2                I EN |             Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
(Federal Administrative Court ) ( Germany ), for a prelimi                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
between Faik Giinaydin, Hatice Giinaydin, Giines Gunay
din, Seda Giinaydin and Freistaat Bayern — on the                                         of 30 September 1997
interpretation of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of
19 September 1980 on the development of the                          in Case C-98/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Association, adopted by the Association Council                      the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt): Kasim Ertanir v. Land
                                                                                Hessen (')
established by the Association Agreement between the
European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court                   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President              Council of Association — Freedom of movement for
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H.                   workers — Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B.             the labour force of a Member State ' and 'legal
Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                      employment' — Residence permit restricted to temporary
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            employment as a specialist chef for a specific employer —
30 September 1997, in which it has ruled:                            Periods not covered by a residence and/or work permit —
                                                                                Calculation of periods of employment)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/03 )
1 . Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September
     1 980 on the development of the Association, adopted                            (Language of the case: German)
     by the Association Council established by the
     Association Agreement between the European
     Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     as meaning that a Turkish national who has been                           published in the European Court Reports)
     lawfully employed in a Member State for an
     uninterrupted period of more than three years in a
                                                                     In Case C-98/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     genuine and effective economic activity for the same
     employer and whose employment status is not                     of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
     objectively different to that of other employees                ( Administrative Court ), Darmstadt ( Germany ) for a
     employed by the same employer or in the sector                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen — on the
     concerned and exercising identical or comparable
     duties, is duly registered as belonging to the labour           interpretation of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of
     force of the State and is legally employed within the           19 September 1980 on the development of the
     meaning of that provision. A Turkish national in that           Association, adopted by the Association Council
     situation may therefore seek the renewal of his permit          established by the Association Agreement between the
     to reside in the host Member State notwithstanding              European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court
     the fact that he was permitted to take up paid                  ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     employment there only temporarily with a specific               of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H.
     employer for the purpose of acquainting himself with            Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B.
     and preparing for employment in one of its                      Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
     subsidiaries in Turkey, and obtained work and                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     residence permits for that purpose only.                        30 September 1997, in which it has ruled :
                                                                     1 . Article 6 (3) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September
                                                                          1980 on the development of the Association, adopted
2 . The fact that a Turkish worker wishes to extend his                   by the Association Council established by the
     stay in the host Member State, although he expressly                 Association Agreement between the European
     accepted its restriction, does not constitute an abuse of            Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted
     rights. The fact that he declared his intention of                   as meaning that it does not permit Member States to
     returning to Turkey after having been employed in the                adopt national legislation which excludes at the outset
     Member State for the purpose of perfecting his                       whole categories of Turkish migrant workers, such as
     vocational skills is not such as to deprive him of the               specialist chefs, from the rights conferred by the three
     rights deriving from Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80             indents of Article 6 (1 ).
     unless it is established by the national court that that
     declaration was made with the sole intention of
     improperly obtaining work and residence permits for             2 . A Turkish national who has been lawfully employed in
     the host Member State.                                               a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more
                                                                          than one year as a specialist chef by the same
                                                                          employer is duly registered as belonging to the labour
                                                                          force of that Member State and is legally employed
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /
                                                                          80. A Turkish national in that situation may
                                                                          accordingly seek the renewal of his permit to reside in
                                                                          the host Member State notwithstanding the fact that
                                                                          he was advised when the work and residence permits


title: Joined Cases T-432/11, T-490/11, T-649/11, T-651/11, T-97/12, T-99/12 to T-102/12 and T-446/12: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Makhlouf and Others v Council

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/57

         Order of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Makhlouf and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-432/11, T-490/11, T-649/11, T-651/11, T-97/12, T-99/12 to T-102/12 and T-446/12) (1)

   2014/C 303/68
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case F-102/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Despatch of the applicant’s personal effects — Action for damages — Action manifestly inadmissible — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-102/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Despatch of the applicant’s personal effects - Action for damages - Action manifestly inadmissible - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2010/C 148/94
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for, first, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the despatch of his personal effects from his official lodgings in Luanda and, second, the provision of copies of the photographs taken in the course of that despatch and the destruction of all documents relating to those effects.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Marcuccio’s application is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to reimburse to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 500.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 52.


title: Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-42/96)

text:
22. 6 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/29
Chamber), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H.                            ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 May 1996 , in                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it :                                                                               of 29 March 1996
                                                                     in Case T-24/96 R: U. v. European Centre for the
1 . Dismisses the application.                                                  Development of Vocational Training
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/77 )
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
H OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-24/96 R: U, an official of the European Centre for
                                                                     the Development of Vocational Training, residing in Berlin,
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , v. European Centre for the
                                                                     Development of Occupational Training (Agent: Bertrand
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Wägenbaur ) — application, first, for suspension of
                                                                     operation of the defendant's decision transferring the
                        of 21 May 1996                               applicant to Thessaloniki and, second, for an order that the
in Case T-153/95 , Raymond Kaps v. Court of Justice of the           applicant's posting in the Commission's office in Berlin be
                  European Communities (*)                           maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Oral test —             of First Instance made an order on 29 March 199 6 , the
Decision ofselection board not to enter the applicant on the         operative part of which is as follows :
reserve list — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Scope of
                         judicial review)
                          ( 961C 180/76 )                            1 . The suspension granted by the order of the President of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of 29 February 1996 is
                                                                         renewed up to and including 12 April 1996. Until that
                (Language of the case: French)                           date, the applicant's posting in Berlin is to continue;
In Case T-153/95 : Raymond Kaps, an official of the Court            2 . The remainder ofthe application for interim measures is
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in                      dismissed:
Schifflange, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Demaseure, Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, all of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          3.  The costs are reserved.
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener,
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for the annulment
of the selection board's decisions in the internal competition
by tests No CJ 51 /93 awarding the applicant marks for his
written and oral tests which did not qualify him for entry on
the reserve list and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of
the defendant's decision not to enter the applicant on the
reserve list of Competition No CJ 51/93 and of the decision
of the complaints committee of 15 May 1995 rejecting the             Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG
applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth            against the Commission of the European Communities
Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the                                     ( Case T-42/96 )
Chamber ), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; B.                                    ( 96/C 180/78 )
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 May 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . Dismisses the application.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 March 1 996
                                                                     by Eyckeler & Malt AG, of Hilden ( Federal Republic of
C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                    Germany ), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
                                                                     Welter .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                        Action brought on 26 March 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
                                                                                ( Case T-44/96 )
     1995 ( Case REM 5/95 ),
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/79 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an undertaking engaged for many years in the          An action against the Commission of the European
 importation of high quality beef ('Hilton ' beef) from              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Argentina , contests the Commission's decision of                   Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 1996
 20 December 1 995 ( Case REM 5/95 ), notified by the                by Oleifici Italiani SpA, whose registered office is at Ostuni
 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ), Diisseldorf, by          ( BR ) ( Italy ), represented by Antonio Tizzano and
which the Commission refused to refund import levies on              Gianmichele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an
 Hilton    beef   from    Argentina     amounting     to   DM        address for service at 36 Place du Grand Sablon,
 11 422 736,45 .                                                     Brussels .
The applicant maintains in particular that the Commission's
decision is founded on an incorrect legal basis . The correct        The applicant claims that the Court should :
legal basis on which the decision should have been founded
was not Article 13 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 but
Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 ( the Customs           — annul partially the Commission's decision contained in
 Code ).                                                                  the letter from Mr M. Jacquiot, the Director of
                                                                          Directorate General Agriculture ( DG VI ) — Directorate
The decision breaches essential procedural requirements,                  G, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
since in the present case the applicant was not granted any               Fund ( EAGGF ) — of 16 January 1996 ( Case No
direct right to be heard or to vindicate its position in the              VI/003107 ), in so far as it refuses to compensate Oleifici
remission procedure ( analogous to inter partes proceedings )             Italiani for part of the damage caused by the
 before the Commission .                                                  Commission by the delay in the take-over of the lots of
                                                                          olive oil awarded on the basis of Regulation ( EC ) No
In its interpretation and application of the term                         2494/94 of 14 October 1994 ( ! ),
'circumstances ' within the meaning of Article 239 of the
Customs Code, the Commission committed a number of                   — order the harm suffered by the applicant as a consequence
serious and manifest errors of assessment, in so far as it                of the alleged unlawful conduct to be made good by the
appraised the arguments advanced in the application at all                Commission ,
and provided a statement of the grounds for its decision
refusing the same . In particular, the Commission failed to
appreciate, or incorrectly appreciated, the serious                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
dereliction of duty on the part of the competent Argentinian
authorities and/or the Argentinian Government in their
capacity as guarantor of the system for issuing and                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
monitoring certificates of authenticity in Argentina , as well
as its own serious dereliction of duty with regard to the            In the context of the tendering procedure for the supply of
implementation and supervision of the Community tariff               olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia, opened by
quotas within the Community . As a result of those                   Regulation ( EC ) No 2494/94 , the Commission awarded to
derelictions of duty, it had been possible to falsify                the applicant the supply of three of the consignments of olive
certificates of authenticity even before 1991 . The applicant        oil which were the object of the call for tenders . Following
should not, as an importer, be made to bear a risk which had        the award, the applicant fulfilled all the obligations relating
been created only as a result of the derelictions of duty, and      to the supply in question . However, the subsequent
which it was powerless to prevent.                                  take-over of the goods was delayed as a result of the
                                                                     negligent organization by the Commission of the
The decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since       embarkation and transport operations . By letter of 22 May
the Commission was in a position, having been empowered              1995 the applicant requested compensation for damage
so to do by the Council, to reduce, with regard to Argentina ,      suffered ( vehicles not able to be used, storage and insurance
the quota in respect of quantities of Hilton beef imported on       costs, cost of the bank guarantee and damage arising from
the basis of falsified certificates of authenticity, but only       the failure to use the appropriate lines of credit), for a total
partially availed itself of that option. The principle of           amounting to Lit 1 062 880 216 . On 29 September 1995 ,
proportionality precludes the Commission from                       following that request for compensation, the applicant
unjustifiably and unnecessarily imposing excessive import           received from the Commission credit of Lit 444 908 307. By
levies on the applicant in its capacity as a bona fide              a letter of 16 January 1 996 , the Commission sent the
importer .                                                          applicant a list of the expenditure which it agreed to
                                                                    compensate. The applicant points out that its dispute with
                                                                    the Commission essentially concerns the question of


title: Case T-234/07: Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Koninklijke Grolsch v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/39

         Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Koninklijke Grolsch v Commission
   (Case T-234/07)
   (2007/C 211/75)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Grolsch NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to Grolsch, and in any event set aside that decision to the extent to which it is addressed to Grolsch;

               —

               set aside or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on Grolsch;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the Commission decision of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which a fine was imposed on the applicant.
   In support of its action the applicant puts forward three procedural heads of complaint. First, it argues that the proceedings were unreasonably lengthy, and that this amounted to an infringement of the principle that proceedings should be conducted within a reasonable period of time. Second, Grolsch submits that its rights of defence were infringed inasmuch as it was refused access to the other parties' replies to the statement of objection. Third, it claims that the principles of sound administration, including the principles of the duty of care and of the presumption of innocence, were infringed inasmuch as the Commission did not act impartially during the investigation, failed to take account of exonerating material, and conducted the investigation in an incomplete or negligent manner.
   The applicant goes on to put forward six heads of complaint in relation to the Commission's substantive findings. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 81 EC, the obligation to state reasons and the principles of sound administration in its findings with regard to, first, the avowed objective of the agreements, second, the alleged incidental allocation of clients in the catering and home-use market sectors, third, the alleged coordination of other commercial conditions, fourth, the alleged agreement and/or adjustment concerning prices and price increases in both the catering and home-use market sectors, including private-label beer, fifth, the alleged duration of the infringement and, sixth, the applicant's ostensibly direct participation in the alleged infringement.
   The applicant concludes by putting forward two heads of complaint relating to the quantum of the fine imposed. It submits that, by applying a notional turnover figure which includes excise duty in applying the legally permissible maximum of 10 %, the Commission breached Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1). The applicant also takes issue with the disproportionate nature of the fine imposed, in which connection it argues that the Commission failed to make allowance for the length of the proceedings and failed to have regard for the contrast with the parallel Belgian beer case (2).

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

      (2)  Case No IV/37/614.F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1).


title: Case C-296/12: Action brought on 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/5

         Action brought on 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-296/12)
   2012/C 273/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force tax relief on pension savings in so far as this applies only to payments to Belgian institutions and Belgian funds, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 56 and 63 thereof;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that the failure to grant tax relief for payments to institutions which are established in another Member State, while tax relief is available for payments to institutions established in Belgium, constitutes an impediment to the free movement of services both for recipients of those services and for providers which are not established in Belgium.
   Likewise the Commission takes the view that the failure to grant tax relief for deposits in individual or collective accounts or payments of premiums for life insurance contracts with and to institutions established in another Member State, while tax relief is available for similar deposits with and payments to institutions established in Belgium, constitutes an impediment to the free movement of capital in the sense that Belgian depositors and policyholders are discouraged from holding deposits or taking out life insurance with an institution that is not established in Belgium because those deposits or life insurance contracts do not attract tax relief and are consequently less advantageous.
   Those impediments are, according to the Commission, not justified on any grounds.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2002 in Joined Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (Staff of the European Central Bank — Amendment of employment contract — Performance appraisal)

text:
25.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 19/29
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                          applicant in Case T-132/00, Cambridge Healthcare Supplies
                                                                            Ltd, established in Norfolk (United Kingdom), represented by
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs together with those     D. Vaughan, K. Bacon, barristers, and S. Davis, solicitor, with
       of the Commission.                                                   an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-137/
                                                                            00, Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker SA, established in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by L. Defalque and X. Leurquin, lawyers,
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case
                                                                            T-141/00, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbæk, R. Wainwright and B. Wägenbaur):
                                                                            Application for annulment of the Commission decisions of
                                                                            9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing
                                                                            authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing
                                                                            respectively ‘amfepramone’ (C(2000) 453), as regards Cases
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                T-74/00, T-76/00 and T-141/00, inter alia‘norpseudoephedri-
                                                                            ne’, ‘clobenzorex’ and ‘fenproporex’ (C(2000) 608), as regards
                      of 26 November 2002                                   Cases T-83/00 to T-85/00, and ‘phentermine’ (C(2000) 452),
                                                                            as regards Cases T-132/00 and T-137/00, the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00,                       of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00: Artegodan GmbH and                         gozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November 2002,
                                                                            in which it:
(Medicinal products for human use — Community arbi-
tration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authoris-
                                                                            1.     Annuls the Commission Decisions of 9 March 2000 (C(2000)
ations — Competence — Criteria for withdrawal — Anorect-                           452, C(2000) 453 and C(2000) 608) in so far as they relate
ics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephe-
                                                                                to the medicinal products marketed by the applicants;
drine, phentermine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/
                                 EEC)
                                                                            2.     Orders the Commission to pay all the costs, including those
                                                                                incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.
                           (2003/C 19/53)
          (Language of the case: German, English and French)                (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000, C 163 of 10.6.2000, C 192 of 8.7.2000
                                                                                and C 233 of 12.8.2000.
In Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/
00, T-137/00 and T- 141/00, Artegodan GmbH, established
in Lüchow (Germany), represented by U. Doepner, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case
T-74/00, Bruno Farmaceutici SpA, established in Rome (Italy),
Essential Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, established in Denham
(United Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel SA, established in
Brussels (Belgium), Marion Merell SA, established in Puteaux                                         of 22 October 2002
(France), Marion Merell SA, established in Barcelona (Spain),
Sanova Pharma GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria),                        in Joined Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00, Jan Pflugradt v
Temmler Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, established in Marburg                                             European Central Bank (1)
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants
in Case T-76/00, Schuck GmbH, established in Schwaig                        (Staff of the European Central Bank — Amendment of
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,                              employment contract — Performance appraisal)
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant
in Case T-83/00, Laboratórios Roussel Lda , established in Mem                                          (2003/C 19/54)
Martins (Portugal), represented by B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant
in Cases T-84/00 and T-85/00, Laboratoires Roussel Diamant                                      (Language of the case: German)
SARL, established in Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter
and M. Ambrosius, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-84/00, Roussel Iberica SA,
established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by B. Sträter                 In Joined Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00, Jan Pflugradt, residing
and M. Ambrosius, lawyers, with an address for service in                   in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented in Case T-178/
Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-85/00, Gerot Pharmazeutika                  00 by N. Pflüger, lawyer, and in Case T-341/00 by N. Pflüger,
GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by K. Grig-              R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, with an address for
kar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                     service in Luxembourg, v European Central Bank (Agents: in
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/30                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
Case T-178/00, J. Fernández Martín, V. Saintot and B. Wägen-                 Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV 40 Canal+/Lagard-
baur, and, in Case T-341/00, V. Saintot, T. Gulliams and                     ère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/Liberty Media), the
Wägenbaur): Application for annulment of the applicant’s                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
performance appraisal report for 1999, in Case T-178/00, and                 sition), composed of M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas,
for annulment of the note of 28 June 2000 from the Director-                 K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
General of the Directorate-General for Information Systems                   Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 Nov-
(DG IS) of the European Central Bank concerning the duties                   ember 2002, in which it:
allocated to the applicant, in Case T-341/00, the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen,                   1.     annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                           the decision of the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a
22 October 2002, in which it:                                                       concentration compatible with the common market and with
                                                                                the European Economic Area Agreement (Case COMP/JV
                                                                                40 Canal+/Lagardère and COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/
1.     Orders that Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00 shall be joined                      Liberty Media);
       for the purposes of the judgment;
2.     Dismisses the applications in Cases T-178/00 and T-341/00;            2.     orders the defendant to pay the costs.
3.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 20 November 2002                                                            of 23 October 2002
in Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA and Canal+ SA v                              in Case T-388/00: Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v Office
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Modifi-
cation of a decision declaring a concentration compatible
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
with the common market — Restrictions directly related
                                                                             figurative mark containing the acronym ILS — Application
and necessary to the implementation of the concentration
                                                                             for Community word mark ELS — Proof of use of earlier
(‘Ancillary restrictions’) — Action for annulment — Chal-
                                                                             mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
lengeable acts — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                             and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Relative
    Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasons)
                                                                             ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 — Statement of reasons)
                            (2003/C 19/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/56)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-251/00: Lagardère SCA, established in Paris, rep-
resented by A. Winckler, avocat, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, Canal+ SA, established in Paris, represented
by J.-P. de La Laurencie and P.-M. Louis, avocats, against                   In Case T-388/00, Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH, established
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils                      in Hamburg (Germany), represented by J. Schneider and
and F. Lelièvre) — application for annulment of the Com-                     A. Buddee, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
mission’s decision of 10 July 2000 amending the decision of                  v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Commission of 22 June 2000 declaring a concentration                     and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, A. di Carlo
compatible with the common market and with the European                      and O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings before


title: Case T-491/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Merant v OHIM — Magazin Verlag (FOCUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FOCUS — Earlier national figurative mark MICRO FOCUS — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Merant v OHIM — Magazin Verlag (FOCUS)
   (Case T-491/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FOCUS - Earlier national figurative mark MICRO FOCUS - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04)
   (2007/C 155/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Merant GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, D. Schennen, subsequently, G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: U. Gürtler, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2) in opposition proceedings between Merant GmbH and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 (Case R 542/2002-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, Merant GmbH;

               3.

               Orders the intervener, Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.


title: Case F-22/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA
   (Case F-22/14) (1)

   (2016/C 287/45)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21/7/2014, p. 34.