title: Case T-376/00: Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 61/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.2.2001
By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-               —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-                          decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common                           compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-                     the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.                  information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
                                                                               applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                               worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the                future career;
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
are of direct and individual concern to them.                                  decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                               compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                               applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,                 candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts                 lost an opportunity of promotion;
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual              Pleas in law and main arguments
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-             The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of        appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
competition on the markets concerned.                                    unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
                                                                         transport’.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
                                                                         in law:
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                               the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-                             rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-                           principle of equal treatment;
                                ties
                                                                         —     a manifest error of assessment in the present case;
                         (Case T-376/00)                                 —     misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations.
                          (2001/C 61/38)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            Company against the Council of the European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon                                      (Case T-382/00)
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/39)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and               An action against the Council of the European Union was
      other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;                                        Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
                                                                         a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application          represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
      of the applicant for the post in question;                         Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.


title: Case T-77/00: Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecommunications Ltd., against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/43
— The evaluation carried out of the safety and efficacy of                 — The Commission based its conclusions on an incorrect
     amfepramon has no valid scientific basis. Criteria were used              analysis of the relevant market, contrary to its own
     for assessment which are applicable only in procedures for                decisional practice.
     new authorisations or extensions. Such procedures are,
     however, within the competence of the Member States.                  — Contrary to the findings in the contested decision, Telecom
     The decision is therefore also void on the ground of misuse               Éireann abused its dominant position by refusing to
     of powers.                                                                provide proper access to the applicant, by offering bundled
                                                                               access conditions on a retail basis and by discriminating
                                                                               between the access conditions granted to the applicant and
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  other telecommunications operators.
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                — Basing itself on the assumption that the available evidence
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             was insufficient to prove that Telecom Éireann abused
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-          its dominant position, the applicant submits that the
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English         Commission misused its powers by refusing to conduct the
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).                                         additional proceedings required to establish this evidence.
Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecommuni-                        Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
cations Ltd., against the Commission of the European                       Industries Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
                             Communities                                                         pean Communities
                            (Case T-77/00)                                                          (Case T-78/00)
                           (2000/C 149/79)                                                         (2000/C 149/80)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecom-                      European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
munications Ltd., Dublin, represented by Bernard Amory and                 Industries Limited, Osaka (Japan), represented by Christopher
Alexandre Verheyden of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Brussels.               Vajda QC and David Aitman, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the defendant’s decision of 18 January 2000 to be                — annul Articles 1 to 5 of the decision in so far as they are
     void;                                                                     addressed to the applicant;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    — alternatively, annul Article 4 of the decision in so far as it
                                                                               imposes a fine of 13.5 million euro on SMI and fix a
                                                                               substantially lower fine;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The applicant is a licensed provider of telecommunications
services in Ireland. In 1996 it lodged an application for the
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
initiation of a procedure to establish the existence of an
infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) by Telecom Éireann (now called Eircom). The alleged                   According to the applicant, the contested decision finds two
infringement related to the withdrawal by Telecom Éireann of              sets of agreements that infringe Article 81 EC. The first set was
the standard discounts, which it made available to its large-              found to exist between four European producers of seamless
volume end users and to its failure to provide the applicant               standard OCTG and line pipe and four Japanese producers,
with equitable interconnection tariffs. The applicant seeks at             including the applicant (‘EU/Japan agreement’). The second
present the annulment of the Commission decision rejecting                 agreement was found to exist between the European producers
its complaint in particular on following grounds:                          (‘EU Agreement’).


title: Case C-513/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/66/EC — Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-513/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/66/EC - Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 246/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.


13.10.2001            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 289/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/00 (1)                the register of Case C-26/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v French Republic.
                       (2001/C 289/51)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-406/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-27/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/54)
                                                                     By order of 13 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-410/00 (1)                the register of Case C-27/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/52)
By order of 30 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-410/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/55)
                                                                     By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case    C-26/01 (1)              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                     the register of Case C-105/01: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 289/53)                               ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): André van der
                                                                     Plas v Wouter Guis.
By order of 19 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-526/12: Action brought on 5 December 2012 — AXA Versicherung v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Action brought on 5 December 2012 — AXA Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-526/12)
   2013/C 32/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: AXA Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested refusal;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested refusal in part;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges the Commission’s negative decisions by silence refusing the applicant access — for a second time — to the Commission’s file in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the duty to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents under Article 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

                           —

                           The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission failed to comply with its duty under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents. Instead, it wrongfully categorised the documents concerned on the basis of formal criteria.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by refusing access to specific documents in the file.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully gave too broad an interpretation to the scope of the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant takes the view that: (i) commercial interests would not be undermined for the purposes of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/200 and, (ii) the Commission is not entitled to rely on the protection of investigations under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           In addition, the decision-making process would not be seriously undermined (subparagraph 2 of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001).

                           —

                           Moreover, the Commission wrongly denies that there is an overriding public interest in disclosing the documents requested.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by refusing full access to specific documents

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to grant access in part to the relevant documents. The Commission failed to examine whether access should be granted to some of the documents, thereby infringing the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2), the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) and Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by refusing access to the complete version of the contents page of the Commission’s file.

                           —

                           In this context, the applicant claims that the Commission gave too broad an interpretation to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 also in relation to the application for access to the unredacted version of the contents page. The applicant takes the view that, also in this regard, commercial interests — the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — and the protection of investigations — the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 –could not be undermined.

                           —

                           In addition, it submits that the privacy of the individual under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 would not be undermined.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-349/00: Action brought on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 61/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio Lebedef                    In support of his application, the applicant pleads:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —    infringement of the framework agreement concluded
                                                                              between the Commission and the OSPs in 1974, on
                        (Case T-349/00)                                       account of the absence of any objective examination of
                                                                              the representativity of the OSPs and a manifest error in
                                                                              the comparative assessment of that representativity;
                         (2001/C 61/27)
                                                                         —    breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                              discrimination;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                              interests;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                —    infringement of the rights of the defence;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio                      —    breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary methods, of
Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented                  the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of
by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar.                                     the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                              officials;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    abuse of powers and improper exercise of authority.
—     annul the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels,
      the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed
      between the majority of the trade unions/staff associ-
      ations (‘the OSPs’) and the administration of the Com-
      mission on 19.1.2000;
                                                                         Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M.
—     alternatively, annul the composition of the consultation           Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      body as provided for by those rules in so far as it                                        Internal Market
      excludes the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from such
      consultations;                                                                             (Case T-352/00)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 17.2.2000 refusing                                       (2001/C 61/28)
      to grant the applicant leave to attend, on a mission basis,
      the meeting of the ‘Ad hoc working group on staff reports
      and proposals for the promotion of staff on secondment                               (Language of the case: English)
      and staff elected or designated to fulfil certain functions’
      or to engage on the same basis in any other activity in
      the context of staff representation.                               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 20 November 2000 by
                                                                         Andrew M. Rosemarine, represented by James Davis, of the
                                                                         Aire Centre, London.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should order the OHIM to:
The applicant, a Commission official, seeks annulment of the
                                                                         —    compensate for:
operational rules in issue on the ground that they exclude
from the consultation body the trade union known as ‘Action
& Défense’, of which he is a one of the leaders. He also seeks                —     the sum of the value of the job
annulment of an individual decision taken against him,
refusing to grant him leave to engage in his trade-union                      —     the loss of enjoyment of having a job in Alicante
activities on a mission basis on the ground that such missions
must be restricted exclusively to the OSPs represented on the                 —     the inconvenience of these appeals to the OHIM and
consultation body.                                                                  the Court;


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-483/00. C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) in Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Tardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-483/00), and Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of: Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-485/00), and Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (C-486/00), and Cooperativa Nuova Latte Srl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-487/00), and Azienda Agricola Fermo e Gabriele Borini ss v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-488/00), and Giuseppe De Marchi and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-492/00), and Ferdinando Pavane.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-493/00), and Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Toscana (C-494/00), and Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani Soc. coop. arl and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-496/00), and Azienda Agricola Pietro Baita and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarinie.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-21/01) (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 — Reference quantities — Correction a posteriori)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 21 June 2005
   in Joined Cases C-483/00. C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) in Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Tardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-483/00), and Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of: Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-485/00), and Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (C-486/00), and Cooperativa Nuova Latte Srl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-487/00), and Azienda Agricola Fermo e Gabriele Borini ss v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-488/00), and Giuseppe De Marchi and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-492/00), and Ferdinando Pavane.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-493/00), and Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Toscana (C-494/00), and Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani Soc. coop. arl and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-496/00), and Azienda Agricola Pietro Baita and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarinie.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-21/01) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 - Reference quantities - Correction a posteriori)
   (2005/C 271/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-Joined Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy), made by decision of 6 July 2000 received at the Court on 29 December 2000 in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Tardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-483/00), and Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of: Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-485/00), and Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (C-486/00), and Cooperativa Nuova Latte Srl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-487/00), and Azienda Agricola Fermo e Gabriele Borini ss v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-488/00), and Giuseppe De Marchi and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-492/00), and Ferdinando Pavane.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-493/00), and Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Toscana (C-494/00), and Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani Soc. coop. arl and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-496/00), and Azienda Agricola Pietro Baita and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarinie.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-21/01) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and M. J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 21 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   On a proper construction of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/97 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sects and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State, after checks have been carried out, to correct the individual reference quantities allocated to each producer and, after the unused reference quantities have been reallocated, to recalculate in consequence the additional levies payable, after the final date for payment of those levies for the milk marketing year concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Case C-593/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA, Rina SpA, SOA Rina Organismo di Attestazione SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 51 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 14 — Bodies responsible for verifying and certifying that undertakings carrying out public works comply with the conditions laid down by law — National legislation providing that the registered office of such bodies must be situated in Italy)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA, Rina SpA, SOA Rina Organismo di Attestazione SpA
   (Case C-593/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 51 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 14 - Bodies responsible for verifying and certifying that undertakings carrying out public works comply with the conditions laid down by law - National legislation providing that the registered office of such bodies must be situated in Italy))
   (2015/C 279/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Consiglio di Stato, Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero per le Politiche europee, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero degli Affari esteri

      Defendants: Rina Services SpA, Rina SpA, SOA Rina Organismo di Attestazione SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of establishment laid down in that provision does not apply to the certification activities carried out by companies classified as certification bodies.

               2.

               Article 14 of Directive 2006/123 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that companies classified as certification bodies must have their registered office in national territory.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-294/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 30 June 2006 — The Queen on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 30 June 2006 — The Queen on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-294/06)
   (2006/C 237/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
   Questions referred

               1.

               In a case in which:

                           a)

                           a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for two years in order to take up a placement in that country as an 'au pair' as defined in the United Kingdom Immigration Rules; and

                           b)

                           her leave to enter included permission to be employed in that capacity; and

                           c)

                           she was continuously employed in that capacity by the same employer for a period exceeding one year during her leave to enter; and

                           d)

                           that employment was a genuine and effective economic activity; and

                           e)

                           that employment was in accordance with national laws relating to employment and immigration;
                           then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that employment:

                                       (i)

                                       a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey?

                                       (ii)

                                       duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the United Kingdom within the meaning of that Article?

               2.

               In a case in which:

                           a)

                           a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom under its Immigration Rules in order to follow a course of study in that country; and

                           b)

                           his leave to enter included permission to be employed in any occupation with a limit during term time of 20 hours work per week; and

                           c)

                           he was continuously employed by the same employer for a period exceeding one year during his leave to enter;

                           d)

                           that employment was a genuine and effective economic activity; and

                           e)

                           that employment was in accordance with national laws relating to employment and immigration;
                           then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that employment:

                                       (i)

                                       a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey?

                                       (ii)

                                       duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the United Kingdom within the meaning of that Article?


title: Case T-251/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 31/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application           The applicant does not substantially contest the facts men-
for suspension of operation of the decision of 4 December                 tioned by the Commission in the contested decision, and the
2000 of the appointing authority concerning the reassignment              pleas in its application relate to the amount of the fine
of the applicant to the translation service — the President of            imposed.
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 21 September
2001, in which he:
                                                                          The applicant submits that the fine is unlawful, essentially
1.    Dismissed the application for interim measures;                     since it violates the duty of proportionality and of equal
                                                                          treatment. It alleges that the Commission has acted unlawfully
                                                                          and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5, 81 and 253 of the EC
2.    Reserved the costs.
                                                                          Treaty by merely determining the basic amount of the fine on
                                                                          the basis of the applicant’s world-wide turnover and not taking
                                                                          into account the scope of its activities in the EEA. The
                                                                          categorisation used by the Commission for the establishment
                                                                          of the basic amount of fine and the setting of this amount
                                                                          violate the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      violated the general principles of fairness and ‘non bis in idem’
                                                                          by not taking into account the sanctions previously imposed
                          (Case T-251/01)                                 on the applicant by the US competition authorities.
                           (2002/C 31/25)
                                                                          Finally, it alleges that, when examining possible mitigating
                                                                          circumstances, the Commission violated the principles of equal
                   (Language of the case: English)                        treatment and of proportionality by not making sufficient
                                                                          distinction between the Japanese producers, all being regarded
                                                                          as active members of the cartel. By disregarding the applicant’s
                                                                          passive role and ‘follow my leader’ approach, the Commission
                                                                          has disregarded its own Guidelines as well as the case law of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corpor-
ation, represented by Mr Koen Platteau of Linklaters & Alliance,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 18 July
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,                 Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graph-
      in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 12,2 million on the           ite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European
      applicant, or, at the least, substantially reduce this fine;                                  Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-252/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a Japanese manufacturer of graphite electrodes
and other graphite products. By the contested decision, fines
were imposed on the applicant and seven other companies for
having infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
graphite electrodes sector. The fine imposed on the applicant             European Communities on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/
was of EUR 12,2 million. Parallel proceedings relating to these           Graphite Group, Inc., represented by Mr Marc Seimetz and
agreements and practices have been undertaken in other                    Mr Jean Brücher of Brücher & Seimetz in association with
jurisdictions, e.g. in the United States.                                 Dechert, Luxembourg (Luxembourg).


title: Case T-103/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/41

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)
   (Case T-103/17)
   (2017/C 121/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Recordati Orphan Drugs (Puteaux, France) (represented by: J. Quirin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Normon SA (Tres Cantos, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NORMOSANG’ — Application for registration No 12 174 926

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 in Case R 831/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Rules 19(2)(a)(ii) and 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-530/11: Action brought on 18 October 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/7

         Action brought on 18 October 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-530/11)
   2012/C 39/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, L. Armati, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose fully and apply correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EC (2) and 96/61/EC (3), the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, judicial proceedings relating to environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive. This implements Article 9(4) of the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters which has been concluded by the Union and most of the Member States.
   The Commission claims that the United Kingdom has failed to transpose these provisions in all three of its jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).
   On an analysis of the rules and practice applicable in those jurisdictions and an examination of the concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ proceedings, the Commission also maintains that the United Kingdom has failed to apply those provisions correctly.

      (1)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission
   OJ L 156, p. 17

      (2)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
   OJ L 175, p. 40

      (3)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
   OJ L 257, p. 26


title: Case C-366/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) by order of that Court of 30 September 2002 in the administrative proceedings between Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Authority for Agriculture and the Reorganisation of Land, South

text:
7.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                        purposes on the qualifying date, within the meaning of
gericht, Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) by order of                      either of the above regulations, and, if so, whether any of
that Court of 30 September 2002 in the administrative                         the aforesaid circumstances might cause it no longer to
proceedings between Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Auth-                          be so regarded?
ority for Agriculture and the Reorganisation of Land,
                              South
                        (Case C-366/02)
                        (2002/C 305/26)                                 Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-368/02)
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht,
Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) of 30 September 2002,
                                                                                (2002/C 305/27)
received at the Court Registry on 14 Oktober 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings between
Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Authority for Agriculture and
the Reorganisation of Land, South on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
1.   Does being under permanent crops, within the meaning               ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of                represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
     30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers           its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), or Article 7
     of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May
     1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1), necessarily require that the           The Commission claims that the Court should:
     crops on the land, in this case apple trees, are being
     cultivated?
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
                                                                              notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
2.   Is the land still under permanent crops if the owner or                  down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     tenant stops using insecticides during the growing season                necessary to comply fully with Directive 98/27/EC of the
     and no longer picks the apples thereafter?                               European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
                                                                              1998 ( 1) on injunctions for the protection of consumers’
                                                                              interests, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
3.   If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does the                 obligations under Article 8(1) of the directive;
     land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner or
     tenant decides to fell the apple trees on it but does not in
     fact act on that decision before the qualifying date? Is the       —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     answer different if, before the qualifying date, another
     undertaking is contracted to carry out the clearing?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4.   If the answer to Question 3 is also in the negative, does
     the land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner
     or tenant has felled the trees, with no intention of
                                                                        The period prescribed for transposition expired on 1 January
     planting new trees? In other words, is the deadline for
     clearing, namely 31 December 1991, also the relevant               2001. Although Spain has already transposed into domestic
                                                                        law Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, to which
     deadline for the purposes of the support system?
                                                                        Directive 98/27/EC also applies by virtue of the amendment
                                                                        introduced by Article 18 of Directive 2000/31/EC, the infringe-
5.   If the answer to Question 4 is also in the negative, does          ment alleged against Kingdom of Spain continues to exist in
     the land cease to be under permanent crops if it is cleared        its entirety so far as concerns the basic provisions of Directive
     of the felled trees before the qualifying date to prepare it       98/27/EC and its implementation in the sectors initially
     for use as arable land?                                            provided for in the annex thereto.
6.   If any of the above circumstances do result in the land            (1 ) OJ No L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.
     ceasing to be under permanent crops the question arises
     whether, once it is no longer under permanent crops, it
     is to be regarded as being used for non-agricultural


title: Case C-395/10: Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/18

         Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-395/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and V. Peere, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/2/EC expired on 14 May 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.


title: Case F-67/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Michail v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Evaluation — Career evaluation report — 2003 evaluation period — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Michail v Commission
   (Case F-67/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Evaluation - Career evaluation report - 2003 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 8/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agent, assisted by E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)
   Re:
   On the one hand, an application for the annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the evaluation period from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003 and, on the other, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Mr Michail's career evaluation report for the evaluation period from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 229 of 17.9.2005, p. 33 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-284/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-57/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/60

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-57/14)
   2014/C 421/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty consisting of a reprimand on the applicant following a disciplinary enquiry and the award of damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 19 March 2014, notified on 20 March 2014 and, so far as is necessary, the decision dated 6 September 2013 adopted by the DG Human Resources and Security;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum calculated ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Costs.


title: Case C-354/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Andrew Marcus Henderson v Novo Banco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation No 1393/2007 — Articles 8, 14 and 19 — Postal service of a document instituting the proceedings — Failure to provide a translation of the document — Annex II — Standard form — None — Consequences — Service by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt — Failure to return acknowledgement of receipt — Receipt of document by a third party — Conditions of validity of the proceedings)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/3

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Andrew Marcus Henderson v Novo Banco SA
   (Case C-354/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation No 1393/2007 - Articles 8, 14 and 19 - Postal service of a document instituting the proceedings - Failure to provide a translation of the document - Annex II - Standard form - None - Consequences - Service by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt - Failure to return acknowledgement of receipt - Receipt of document by a third party - Conditions of validity of the proceedings))
   (2017/C 121/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Évora

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrew Marcus Henderson

      Defendant: Novo Banco SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘service of documents’), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, in the event that a judicial document, served on a defendant residing in the territory of another Member State, has not been drafted or accompanied by a translation either in a language which that defendant understands, or in the official language of the requested Member State or, where there are several official languages in that Member State, in the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected, the omission of the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation renders such service invalid, even if such invalidity must be invoked by that defendant within a specified period or at the beginning of the proceedings and before any defence on the merits.
               The regulation requires, on the other hand, that such an omission be corrected in accordance with the provisions laid down in that regulation, by communicating the standard form set out in Annex II of that regulation to the person concerned.

               2.

               Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that postal service of a document instituting proceedings is valid, even if:

                           —

                           The acknowledgment of receipt of the registered letter containing the document to be served on the addressee has been replaced by another document, provided that such document provides equivalent guarantees as regards information provided and evidence. It is for the court hearing the matter in the Member State of transmission to satisfy itself that the addressee has received the document in question in such a way as to ensure that his rights of defence have been respected;

                           —

                           The document to be served has not been delivered to its addressee in person, provided that it has been served on an adult person who is inside the habitual residence of that person and is either a member of his family or an employee in his service. Where appropriate, it is for the addressee to establish, by all admissible forms of evidence before the court hearing the matter in the Member State of transmission, that he could not effectively take account of the fact that judicial proceedings were being brought against him in another Member State, that he could not identify the subject-matter and grounds of the claim, or that he did not have sufficient time to prepare his defence.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-458/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Générations futures v Commission

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/7

         Action brought on 15 October 2012 — Générations futures v Commission
   (Case T-458/12)
   2012/C 389/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouvement pour les droits et le respect des générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France) (represented by: A. Faro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Director-General for Health and Consumers of 16 August 2012 (ARES 977 175) refusing the application for review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, made on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a French association approved for environmental protection activities, seeks, on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006, the review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam. (1) By decision of 16 August 2012, the Commission refused to carry out that review on the ground that the implementing regulation of which review is sought does not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006. (2)

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law.
   The applicant submits, firstly, that the implementing regulation is the response to an individual application made by a third party undertaking and, secondly, that the restriction to administrative acts laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation, is not compatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. (3)

   The applicant also submits that its application for review is well founded, since (i) the applicable procedure was not followed, (ii) the file submitted for evaluation is insufficient and (iii) the approval criteria were not applied.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2012 L 114, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (3)  Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.


title: Case C-529/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 51(1)(b) — Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is acting in bad faith when filing an application for a Community trade mark)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH
   (Case C-529/07) (1)

   (Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 51(1)(b) - Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is ‘acting in bad faith’ when filing an application for a Community trade mark)
   2009/C 180/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG

      Defendant: Franz Hauswirth GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Concept of the applicant for a mark ‘acting in bad faith’ — Trade mark application intended to prevent competitors from continuing to market similar goods which have previously acquired a certain reputation — Chocolate Easter bunnies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   In order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark, in particular:

               —

               the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought;

               —

               the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and

               —

               the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-489/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 — U.S. Steel Košice v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan for emission allowances for Slovakia in respect of the period from 2005 to 2007 — Decision indicating that the Commission has no intention to raise objections — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 — U.S. Steel Košice v Commission
   (Case T-489/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan for emission allowances for Slovakia in respect of the period from 2005 to 2007 - Decision indicating that the Commission has no intention to raise objections - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 297/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: U.S. Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst, Lawyer, C. Thomas, Solicitor, and D. Hueting, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
   Re:
   ACTION for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Slovak Republic for the period from 2005 to 2007 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32),
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               U.S. Steel Košice s.r.o. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-631/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Roland SE v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe — Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/53

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Roland SE v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe)
   (Case T-631/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe - Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2014 (Case R 1591/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Roland SE and Christian Louboutin.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-83/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-83/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/50)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-234/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel in Minister van Sociale Zaken, Staatssecretaris voor volksgezondheid v BVBA De Backer (Preliminary references — Not admissible)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-234/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel in Minister van Sociale Zaken, Staatssecretaris voor volksgezondheid v BVBA De Backer (1)

   (Preliminary references - Not admissible)
   (2006/C 36/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-234/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 25 May 2005, received at the Court on 27 May 2005, in the proceedings between Minister van Sociale Zaken, Staatssecretaris voor volksgezondheid and BVBA De Backer — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 27 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van beroep te Brussel by decision of 25 May 2005 is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.2005


title: Case T-93/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ programme — ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/35

      Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission
      (Case T-93/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ programme - ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries - Debit note - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands), and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the ‘decision of an unknown date, formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission’, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 140 500,01 in the context of the ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ project, issuing a debit note to that end and insisting, if necessary, on the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


No C 210/24          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              20 . 7 . 96
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-157/95 : the European                  T-233/95 , T v. European Parliament.
Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers, Golden Food
Products Limited, Carbery Milk Products Ltd, Dansco                (>) OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
Dairy Products Ltd and Express Foods ( Northern Ireland )
Limited v. Commission of the European Communities .
(M OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case T-219/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/56 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-233/95 ( )                By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Fifth
                                                                   Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                        ( 96/C 210/55 )
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case T-219/95 , Marie-Thérèse
               (Language of the case: Greek)                       Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities .
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (!) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case C-255/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Articles 3 and 9 — Obligation to declare — Infringement — Penalties — Proportionality)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-255/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Articles 3 and 9 - Obligation to declare - Infringement - Penalties - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 302/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robert Michal Chmielewski

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, imposes payment of an administrative fine, the amount of which corresponds to 60 % of the amount of undeclared cash, where that sum is more than EUR 50  000.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2003 in Case C-153/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Valentina Neri v European School of Economics (ESE Insight World Education System Ltd) (Freedom of establishment — Recognition of diplomas — Degree issued by a university established in a Member State — Courses of study in preparation for a degree awarded in another Member State and by another educational establishment)

text:
10.1.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 7/17
2.    Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           An administrative practice such as the one at issue in the main
      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member              proceedings, under which degrees awarded by a university of one
      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value              Member State cannot be recognised in another Member State when
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment does not preclude                the courses of preparation for those degrees were provided in the latter
      reimbursement of an amount mentioned in error by way of                 Member State by another educational establishment in accordance
      value added tax on an invoice or other document serving as              with an agreement made between the two establishments, is
      invoice where the services at issue are not subject to value added      incompatible with Article 43 EC.
      tax and the amount invoiced cannot therefore be classified as
      value added tax.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002 and OJ C 144 du 15.6.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 October 2003
                       of 13 November 2003
                                                                              nella causa C-35/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-153/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Landeszahnärzte-
the Giudice di pace di Genova): Valentina Neri v European                     kammer Hessen v Markus Vogel, Third parties: Landes-
School of Economics (ESE Insight World Education Sys-                         ärtztekammer Hessen, Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes-
                              tem Ltd) (1)                                                          verwaltungsgericht (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Recognition of diplomas —                         (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of
Degree issued by a university established in a Member State                   establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directives
— Courses of study in preparation for a degree awarded in                     78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC — The practice of dentistry
another Member State and by another educational establish-                                                 by a doctor)
                                 ment)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/29)
                            (2004/C 7/28)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-153/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 In Case C-35/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary                    by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Valentina Neri and European School of Economics (ESE                          Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen and Markus Vogel; Third
Insight World Education System Ltd) on the interpretation of                  parties: Landesärtztekammer Hessen, Oberbundesanwalt beim
Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC, of Council Decision 63/266/                  Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on the the interpretation of Council
EEC of 2 April 1963 laying down general principles for                        Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordi-
implementing a common vocational training policy (OJ,                         nation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
English Special Edition 1963-1964 (I), p. 25) and Council                     trative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                          (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10), as amended by the Act concerning the
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                       conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic
awarded on completion of professional education and training                  of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to
of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), the                  the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting                     1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Fourth
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and                     Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                       President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr,
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,              Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
has given a judgment on 13 November 2003, in which it has                     made an order on 17 October 2003, the operative part of
ruled:                                                                        which is as follows:


title: Case C-479/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/30/EC — Pollution control — Limit values for concentrations of PM 10 in ambient air)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-479/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/30/EC - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)
   2011/C 194/10
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) — PM10 particles exceeding limit values in ambient air in zones SW 2 and SW 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PMlO in ambient air from 2005 to 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


C 95/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24.3.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges absence of or           Case T-72/00, Steffen Skovmand v Commission of the Euro-
insufficient reasons given by the selection board for changing          pean Communities.
the criteria for marking the tests in question by reducing the
averages for the points to be obtained for those tests, contrary        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
to Article 5 of Annex 3 to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-143/00 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-19/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/45)
                         (2001/C 95/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2000, the President of the Fourth
By order of 20 November 2000, the President of the Third                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Case T-143/00, Sylvia Haupt v Commission of the European
Case T-19/00, Jean Demaeght and Others v Court of Justice of            Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R
       Removal from the Register of Case T-72/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/46)
                         (2001/C 95/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 9 October 2000, the President of the Court of First
By order of 10 November 2000, the President of the Third                Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R, Patrick
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Reynolds v European Parliament.


title: Case T-359/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/42

         Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)
   (Case T-359/16)
   (2016/C 296/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TestBild’ — Application for registration No 4 555 579

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 in Case R 555/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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