title: Case C-273/99 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr Connolly and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of                     Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                     against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the
                          Luxembourg                                    First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr
                                                                        Connolly and the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-272/99)                                                                ties
                        (1999/C 281/11)                                                         (Case C-273/99 P)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                                              (1999/C 281/12)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, and              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by
Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr B. Connolly and
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        20 July 1999 by Mr Connolly, represented by Jacques Sambon
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  and Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with
the Court should:                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
                                                                        Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
(1) declare that, by adopting the Law of 15 March 1983 to
    protect the life and well-being of animals, which does              The appellant claims that the Court should:
    not correctly transpose Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
    24 November 1986 regarding the protection of animals
    used for experimental purposes (1), the Grand Duchy of                  Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that              European Communities of 19 May 1999.
    directive and, in particular, Articles 5, 7(2), 8(1) and (3)
    and 19(5) thereof;                                                      And, ruling on the merits of the forms of order sought by
                                                                            the applicant
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            — annul the decision of 6 September 1995 to commence
                                                                                disciplinary proceedings against him, the decision of
                                                                                27 September 1995 to suspend him from his duties,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and the decision of 4 October 1995 to refer the matter
                                                                                to the Disciplinary Board;
— Infringement of Article 5 of the directive: the abovemen-
    tioned Luxembourg law falls short in numerous respects
    of the obligations expressly imposed by the directive.                  — order the Commission to pay him compensation of
                                                                                BFR 750 000 for the material and non-material dam-
— Infringement of Article 7(2) of the directive: the Luxem-                      age suffered by him following the press campaign and
    bourg law does not clearly provide that the use of                           the defamatory allegations to which he was subject;
    an ‘animal with the lowest degree of sensitivity and
    psychological development’ may constitute an alternative                — order that publication of the operative part of the
    to a ‘reasonable alternative solution’ only in cases concern-                judgment to be given take place in the following
    ing animals not referred to in Article 2(a) of the directive.                newspapers at the Commission’s expense: The Times,
                                                                                The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times;
— Infringement of Article 19(5) of the directive: the absence
    of any obligation to keep records showing the provenance                — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    and date of arrival of all animals acquired prevents the
    competent authorities to a considerable extent from being
    able to check that the animals used come from breeding
    establishments or supplying establishments or from estab-           Pleas in law and main arguments
    lishments approved in accordance with Article 15 of the
    directive, or that they have been properly bred in the
    user establishment in accordance with Article 20 of the             Infringement of Community law:
    directive.
                                                                        — Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of the
                                                                            first paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            Officials: The Commission infringed the requirement upon
(1) OJ L 358 of 18.12.1986, p. 1.                                           the appointing authority not only to state the serious
                                                                            misconduct alleged against the official concerned but also
                                                                            to justify in what way that serious misconduct made it
                                                                            necessary to suspend the official immediately from his
                                                                            prerogatives.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 281/7
— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of                 Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic
     the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance               of Germany against the Commission of the European
     misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of                                        Communities
     27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised
     public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu-
     lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof.                                                 (Case C-276/99)
— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the
     duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not                                   (1999/C 281/14)
     possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary
     sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the
     benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     cases of publication by a serving official without prior             Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of
     authorisation.                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
                                                                          and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the
                                                                          Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of
                                                                               21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88
                                                                               of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by
                                                                               Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of                      (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des
                  Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-275/99)
                          (1999/C 281/13)                                 The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision
                                                                          that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC
                                                                          Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid (1) Unlike the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-                 court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims
tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of                in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs
22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999,             and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v                  agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which
Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question:                 would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision
                                                                          on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be
                                                                          implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim.
                                                                          The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that
Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council                the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal
Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of            against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the
the European Communities on 16 August 1989 (1), to intro-                 Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not
duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding              infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of
value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in                  an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti-
respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment             cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the
from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of               specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an
combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth                appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the
Directive.                                                                ECSC Treaty.
(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the           (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined
    French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second             Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of
    subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC           First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ
    on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating            C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p.
    to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21).                         5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5).


title: Case T-36/10: Action brought on 1 February 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/48

         Action brought on 1 February 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
   (Case T-36/10)
   2010/C 100/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to the documents which have not been released;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2009 by which its application for access to the undisclosed documents on the file concerning the LIEN 97-2011 contract was refused in part, and to the Commission’s letter of 1 December 2009 informing the applicant that a decision on the applicant’s second application for access to the file of the LIEN 97-2011 contract could not be taken within the period prescribed.
   In support of its application the applicant submits, in essence, that the Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant access to the documents applied for on the basis of the exceptions laid down under Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicant further submits in that regard that there is an overriding public interest in the release of the documents which have not yet been made available.

      (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: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-251/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage): C. Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem (Freedom of establishment — Assets invested in shares in companies established in the taxing Member State — Exemption from wealth tax — Assets invested in shares in companies established in another Member State — No exemption)

text:
C 192/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.7.2000
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)          Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
precludes the application of rules laid down in a Member State by          Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
sporting associations which prohibit a basketball club from fielding       Union is founded, and the principle of equal treatment enshrined
players from other Member States in matches in the national                more specifically in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the
championship, where they have been transferred after a specified date,     EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the second subparagraph of
if that date is earlier than the date which applies to transfers of        Article 34(2) EC), are to be interpreted as not precluding national
players from certain non-member countries, unless objective reasons        legislation governing the initial allocation of individual reference
concerning only sport as such or relating to differences between the       quantities and adopted by a Member State which acceded to the
position of players from a federation in the European zone and that        European Communities on 1 January 1995, whereby:
of players from a federation not in that zone justify such different
treatment.                                                                 — individual reference quantities for producers who did not alter
                                                                                their production between 1 January 1991 and 31 December
                                                                                1994 are determined on the basis of the average quantities
(1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.                                                       delivered between 1991 and 1993;
                                                                           — new producers who commenced production between 1 January
                                                                                1991 and 31 December 1994 and producers who increased
                                                                                their production during the same period, but not producers who
                                                                                did not alter their production between 1 January 1991 and
                                                                                31 December 1994 and ecological milk producers, have a
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          reduction applied (and at different rates) in the calculation of
                                                                                their milk quotas;
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   — an individual reference quantity is granted only to producers who
                                                                                can show that their production was continuous between 1 March
                         of 13 April 2000                                       1994 and 1 January 1995, unless a producer who was
                                                                                compelled to interrupt delivery during that period can show
in Case C-292/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                            special circumstances justifying the grant of a reference quantity.
from the Regeringsrätten): Proceedings brought by Kjell
                      Karlsson and Others (1)                              (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
(Additional levy on milk — Milk quota scheme in Sweden
— Initial allocation of milk quotas — National rules —
Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Principle
                        of equal treatment)
                          (2000/C 192/07)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           in Case C-251/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage): C. Baars v Inspecteur
                                                                           der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin-
In Case C-292/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                              chem (1)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought               (Freedom of establishment — Assets invested in shares in
before that court by Kjell Karlsson and Others — on the                    companies established in the taxing Member State —
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of                   Exemption from wealth tax — Assets invested in shares in
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk               companies established in another Member State — No
and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), Article 5 of                                             exemption)
the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Article 40(3) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC) and the
principle of equal treatment — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                                             (2000/C 192/08)
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
13 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector,      In Case C-251/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Gerechtshof te
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/5
’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the                of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the
proceedings pending before that court between C. Baars and                 competent authorities of the Member States in the field of
Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gor-                direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — the Court (First
inchem — on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC              Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) and                P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advo-
Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC                  cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
and 58 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                       has ruled:
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Adminis-                  Article 4(1) (a) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April                1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of
2000, in which it has ruled:                                               the Member States in the field of direct taxation must be interpreted
                                                                           as follows:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in       — it is not necessary for the loss of tax referred to therein to be
the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the            covered by an express measure on the part of the competent
capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence            authority of another Member State.
over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its
activities,                                                                — the expression a loss of tax refers to an unjustified saving in tax
                                                                                in another Member State.
— allows nationals of Member States resident on its territory an
     exemption, in whole or in part, from wealth tax in respect of the
     assets invested in shares in the company,                             (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
— but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the
     holding be held in a company established in the Member State
     concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies
     established in other Member States.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-
                          of 13 April 2000                                               transposition of Directive 94/62/EC)
in Case C-420/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             (2000/C 192/10)
the Nederlandse Raad van State): W. N. v Staatssecretaris
                          van Financiën (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Harmonisation of laws — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual
assistance by the authorities of the Member States in
the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                             information)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 192/09)                                 In Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws,
                                                                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
                                                                           1994 L 365, p. 10), or failing to adopt the necessary measures
In Case C-420/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              to comply therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse                    its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive —
Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary            the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken
W. N. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpret-               (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:


title: Case C-38/04: Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 71/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 30 January 2004 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admi-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     nistratif de Dijon (First Chamber) by order of that Court
                            Netherlands                                    of 30 December 2003 in the case of SA Laboratoires
                                                                           Fournier against Direction des Vérifications nationales et
                                                                                internationales
                          (Case C-38/04)
                                                                                (Case C-39/04)
                          (2004/C 71/26)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/27)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    European Communities by order of the Tribunal Administratif
on 30 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                       de Dijon (First Chamber) of 30 December 2003, received at
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, acting as Agent.                  the Court Registry on 2 February 2004, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of SA Laboratoires Fournier against Direction
                                                                           des Vérifications nationales et internationales on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    Are the provisions mentioned in Article 244(c)B of the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                   Code général des impôts and in Article 49(g)H of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    Annex III to the said code, in so far as they restrict the
      Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of                    benefit of the tax credit for research to research activities
      the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approxi-                        performed in France, contrary to the provisions of
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                   Article 49 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
      visions of the Member States relating to the classification,              the European Economic Community?
      packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (1) and
      Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001                     —    If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the
      adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of                    condition that the research activities be performed in
      the European Parliament and of the Council concerning                     France laid down by those tax provisions partaking of the
      the approximation of the laws, regulations and adminis-                   principle of coherence of corporation tax and thus
      trative provisions of the Member States relating to                       allowing restriction of the requirements of Article 49 of
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous                  the Treaty?
      preparations (2), or, in any event, by failing to notify the
      Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
      directives;
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-47/04)
The period prescribed for implementation of Directives 1999/
45/EC and 2001/60/EC expired on 30 July 2002.                                                       (2004/C 71/28)
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2001 L 226, p. 5.                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February
                                                                           2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Bordes and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-619/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Leniency programme — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-619/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Leniency programme - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 104/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-162/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI — Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 213/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                           of 9 July 2003                                  in Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-162/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Colours — Combination of
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           orange and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinc-
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           tive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier                                              (2003/C 213/62)
figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVER-                                           (Language of the case: German)
LY HILLS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b)
                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           In Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Waiblingen (Germany), represented by S. Völker and A. Klett,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2003/C 213/61)                                  the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                           Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the decision of the First Board of
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2001 (Case R 477/2000-
                                                                           1), refusing registration of a combination of the colours orange
                                                                           and grey as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                           P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor,
                                                                           Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003 in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-162/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v              (1) Dismisses the action.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo                   (2) Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Carrillo), the other party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Giorgio Beverly Hills,             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 348.
Inc., established in Santa Monica, California (United States of
America): Action brought against the decision of the First
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2001
(Case R 122/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar has given a
judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                of 8 July 2003
                                                                           in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of
                                                                           residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                           of proof)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/63)
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud, former official of the
                                                                           European Parliament, residing in Nice (France), represented by


title: Case T-42/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/60               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings                  interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
      and all other consequential expenses.                                      prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
                                                                                the interest prescribed.
                                                                           —     In any event:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                make all further consequential orders or such further
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                        orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei                      put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-42/02)
                        (2002/C 109/115)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
                                                                           AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                            (Case T-44/02)
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,                                        (2002/C 109/116)
lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Primarily:
—     (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            pean Communities of 11 December 2001;                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
                                                                           Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
      (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                           M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
—     Alternatively:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      (1) annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
            as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
            incompatible with the common market;                           —     annul the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
                                                                                COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for currency
      (2) annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering                    exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
            the recovery of the aid granted together with interest               AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
            from the date on which the aid became available;                     alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
                                                                                AG by Article 3 of that decision;
—     In the further alternative:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
      annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,                AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
      in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,                      of the Court of First Instance.


title: Case T-508/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/39

         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — LTTE v Council
   (Case T-508/11)
   2011/C 347/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: V. Koppe, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 (1) insofar as it concerns the LTTE and determine that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is not applicable to the LTTE;

               —

               In the alternative, apply a less restrictive measure than continued placement on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies; and

               —

               Award costs and interest to the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE and/or Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2011 is inapplicable due to a failure to take regard of the law of armed conflict;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the applicant cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the Council did not conduct any review, as required by Article 1(6) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE as the decision does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE since the decision does not comply with the obligation to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFUE;

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 is void insofar as it concerns the LTTE because it infringes the applicant’s right of defence to effective judicial protection.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011; OJ 2001 L 188, p. 2

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism; OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70


title: Case T-99/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com (TOFUKING) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the Community trade mark TOFUKING — Earlier national word mark King — Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com (TOFUKING)
   (Case T-99/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the Community trade mark TOFUKING - Earlier national word mark King - Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 319/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: TofuTown.com GmbH (Wiesbaum, Germany) (represented by: B. Krause and F. Cordt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment:

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG;

               3.

               Orders TofuTown.com GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-191/03: Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/48              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             2.8.2003
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp                     Instance to annul the previous          appointment of the same
   against the Commission of the European Communities                     candidate to the same post. (1)         It therefore appears from
                                                                          objective, relevant and consistent      evidence that the contested
                         (Case T-191/03)                                  measures were taken in order to         achieve an end other than
                                                                          that of complying in good faith         with the judgment in Case
                                                                          T-158/01.
                        (2003/C 184/103)
                   (Language of the Case: French)                         (1) Judgment of 9 July 2002 in Case T-158/01 Tilgenkamp v Commis-
                                                                              sion, not yet published in the European Court Reports.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 May 2003 by Alexandre Tilgen-
kamp, resident in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Éric
Boigelot.
                                                                          Action brought on 3 June 2003 by Atlantean Limited
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 24 July                                      (Case T-192/03)
      2002 to publish vacancy notice COM/125/02 for the post
      of Deputy Director-General of the Directorate-General for                                     (2003/C 184/104)
      Agriculture;
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                                       (Language of the case: English)
      19 November 2002 to appoint another candidate to that
      vacant post;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      27 November 2002 not to select the applicant for that
                                                                          European Communities on 3 June 2003 by Atlantean Limited,
      post;
                                                                          Donegal, Ireland, represented by Mr A. Hussey, Solicitor,
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, provisionally,         Mr G. Hogen, Senior Counsel, and Mr E. Regan, Barrister,
      the sum of EUR 1 from an amount to be determined for                with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      non-material harm, and a sum, assessed on an equitable
      basis, in damages for non-material harm and prejudice to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicant's career equal to half of the amount of the
      material damage which will be finally determined;                   —      annul Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 (2003/245/
                                                                                EC) insofar as it provides for the rejection of the request
—     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                         by Ireland , in respect of the vessel the MFV Atlantean, to
                                                                                increase capacity MAGP (IV) objectives for reasons of
                                                                                safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and
                                                                                working conditions that concern vessels of more than
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  12 m in length overall, as set out in Annex 2 of the said
                                                                                Decision.
The applicant in this case challenges both the rejection of his
application for the post of Deputy Director-General of the                —      order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of
Directorate-General for Agriculture (vacancy notice COM/125/                     these proceedings
02) and the appointment of another candidate to that post.
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads that Article 7,
the second paragraph of Article 25, the third paragraph of                Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 27, Article 29(1)(a) and Article 45(1) of the Staff
Regulations, and the code of conduct adopted on 18 September              The applicant replaced its fishing vessel with a new vessel, the
1999 on appointments to Grades A 1 and A 2 were infringed,                MFV Atlantean. This vessel was ordered in 1997 and delivered
that the appointment procedure was flawed, that there was a               in 1999. It incorporated safety improvements which gave rise
misuse of powers, and that general principles of law, such as             to an increase in the capacity of gross tonnage. The applicant
the principle of legality (failure to observe the terms of the            relied in this respect on Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/
vacancy notice) and the principle of the protection of legit-             413/EEC (1) of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and
imate expectations, were disregarded.                                     detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector
                                                                          for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001
He contends in particular that the appointment of the candi-              with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis
date ultimately chosen, who had been already been appointed               between resources and their exploitation. This article provides
once before, was predetermined and that everything contrib-               that increases in capacity resulting exclusively from safety
uted towards his being appointed again, including publication             improvements shall justify, on a case by case basis, an increase
of a vacancy notice particularly lacking its essential elements,          by the same amount of the objectives for fleet segments where
that is to say precisely those which had led the Court of First           they do not increase the fishing effort of the vessels concerned.


title: Case T-260/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

         Action brought on 19 May 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-260/11)
   2011/C 211/63
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Annex to the contested regulation contains the penalty imposed on Spain for overfishing of mackerel in 2010 in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1, the quota being reduced by 39 242 tonnes, with reductions of 4 500 tonnes in 2011, 5 500 in 2012, 9 748 in 2013, 9 747 in 2014 and 9 747 in 2015 and ‘where appropriate … in subsequent years’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of Article 105(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (‘Regulation No 1224/2009’), in so far as the contested regulation was adopted before the Commission adopted the implementing regulation provided for in Article 105(6).

               2.

               Infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that there was no Management Committee report, given that until now measures to punish Member States for exceeding their quotas were adopted by means of a Commission Regulation following a prior report by the Management Committee.

               3.

               Infringement of the rights of the defence, since the contested regulation was adopted without the Kingdom of Spain having previously been heard.

               4.

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as, in imposing the contested measure, the Commission left open the possibility of extending that penalty thereafter, over an unspecified number of years.

               5.

               Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the contested regulation entered into force when the fishing year for mackerel had already begun.

               6.

               Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the Commission applied the test relating to socio-economic consequences differently from how it has applied it in other comparable situations.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 February 1995 in Case T-117/94: Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 101 /8          T EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 4 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard ) ( ) in so far as
                      of 21 February 1995                             those articles require the applicant to pay a fine of ECU 1 6,2
                                                                      million by no later than 4 November 1994 (2 ) and, as a
in Case T- 1 1 7/94 : Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia        precautionary measure, application for suspension of the
di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the European                    operation of Articles 3 and 4 of that Decision until such time
                        Communities i 1 )                             as a decision is reached on the present application for
                         (Inadmissibility)                            interim measures or until such date as the President of the
                            95/C 101 /21                              Court of First Instance may determine — the President of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance made an order on 17 February 1 995 ,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       the operative part of which is as follows :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          1 . The obligation on the applicant to provide a bank
         published in the European Court Reports)                         guarantee in favour of the Commission in order to avoid
                                                                          immediate recovery of the fine imposed on the applicant
In Case T- 1 1 7/94 : Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia            by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601 /EC of
di Rovigo, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di                   13 July 1 994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine,                     the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) is
Cirillo Brena , Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele, all                  suspended, subject to the following conditions:
represented by Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   (a ) the applicant shall provide that guarantee in the
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the                           amount of 30% of the fine, plus interest due in
European Communities (Agent: L. Gussetti ) — application                        accordance with the letter of notification of
for annulment of the Commission decision of 15 October
                                                                                1 August 1 994, within three weeks of notification
1993 in so far as it grants financial support to the Veneto                     of the present order;
region for implementation of action in the Po delta area and
for annulment of the contract between the Commission and
                                                                          ( b ) the applicant shall provide the balance of the
the Italian Environment Ministry which resulted therefrom                       guarantee, plus the abovementioned interest,
— the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed                       within six months of notification of the present
of: K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen and R.                                 order.
Garci'a-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 21 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                             1 . Until such time as the full amount of the guarantee has
                                                                          been provided, or, failing that, until expiry of the period
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                         specified in point 1 (b) of the operative part of the
                                                                          present order, the applicant shall forward to the
2 , the applicants are jointly ordererd to bear the costs.                Commission:
(!) OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                          (a ) on a monthly basis, the principal data relating to
                                                                                changes in its economic and financial situation,
                                                                                data which are to be specified by the Commission
                                                                                following notification of the present order;
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                          ( b ) prior to its adoption, any decision which is likely to
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                have a substantial effect on the applicant's
                      of 17 February 1995                                       economic situation or which seeks to alter its legal
in Case T-308/94 R: Cascades SA v. Commission of the                            status .
                   European Communities
                          ( 95/C 101 /22                              3 . The suspension granted under point 1 (b) of the
                                                                          operative part of the present order shall cease to have
                (Language of the case: French)                            effect if the applicant fails to forward to the
                                                                          Commission, within three weeks of notification of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              present order:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          ( a ) the approval, by the Board ofDirectors of Cascades
In Case T-308/94 R: Cascades SA, having its registered                          Inc., of intervention by that company for the
office in Bagnolet ( France ), represented by Jean-Louis                        purpose of making available to the applicant the
Fourgoux, Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, of the Paris Bar,                       funds necessary for the provision of the balance of
and Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                     the guarantee, as referred to in point 1 (b) of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                         operative part of the present order and within the
8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the                           period there specified;
European Communities (Agents : R. Lyal and G. de Bergues )
— application for suspension, until conclusion of the                     ( b ) the undertaking by Cascades Inc. to provide, on the
substantive proceedings in Case T-308/94, of the operation                      applicant's behalf, the balance of the guarantee as
of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 94/601 /EC of                        referred to in point 1 (b) of the operative part of the
13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the                   present order in the event that, prior to the expiry of


title: Case T-100/99: Action brought on 24 April 1999 by Campina Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Action brought on 24 April 1999 by Campina Melkunie                       Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Council of
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                      European Municipalities and Regions against the Com-
                                 ties                                                 mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-100/99)                                                           (Case T-105/99)
                          (1999/C 246/69)                                                          (1999/C 246/70)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          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 on 28 April
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          1999 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions
European Communities on 24 April 1999 by Campina                          (‘CCRE’), an association established in Paris, represented by
Melkunie B.V., of Rosmalen (Netherlands), represented by P.               Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Glazener and G.W.A. van de Meent, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   in Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58
with an address for service in Luxembourg care of Messrs Loeff
                                                                          Rue Charles Martel.
Claeys Verbeke, 58 Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
— annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 on                          Communities, contained in debit note 97002489N of 15
     the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member                     February 1999, not to pay certain sums to the CCRE;
     States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the
     Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     and Guarantee Fund;
— order the Community to pay compensation for the damage                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     suffered by Campina Melkunie, provisionally estimated to
     amount to NLG 9 108 538;
                                                                          The applicant association, the Council of European Munici-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  palities and Regions, contests the decision of the Commission,
                                                                          contained in debit note 97002489N of 15 February 1999, by
                                                                          which the defendant set off the sum of EUR 195 991.00
                                                                          allegedly due to it in connection with the MED-URBS 1994,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           MED-URBS 1995 and MED-URBS MIGRATION 1995 pro-
                                                                          grammes against sums which it acknowledges owing to the
The applicant produces caseinates of a particular type which,             CCRE by virtue of:
according to the contested decision, are ineligible for Com-
munity aid on account of their being contrary to Directive                1. the following grant documents:
83/417/EEC (1) and Regulation No 2921/90 (2).
                                                                               — Regional seminars in the target 2 zones (DG XVI),
                                                                                amounting to EUR 39 447.39;
It maintains that the connection which the Commission
purports to establish between the two legislative acts referred                — Declaration B4-3040/98/208/jnb/d3 (DG XI), amount-
to above cannot be reconciled with their different legal bases,                    ing to EUR 82 800.00;
and effectively amounts to giving direct effect to the provisions
of the directive, to the detriment of individuals. It further             2. the subsidy allocated to the CCRE by the European
pleads breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               Parliament, entitled ‘Subvention Programme 1998’ (Gen-
expectations and of legal certainty, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                               eral Secretariat), amounting to EUR 50 000.00; and
mission did not make its position in the matter known in
advance, together with breach of the duty to provide a
statement of reasons.                                                     3. agreement SC 98 101185 05D05 (DG V), amounting to
                                                                               EUR 23 743.61 (out of a total of EUR 31 405.08).
(1) Council Directive 83/417/EEC of 25 July 1983 on the approxi-          In support of its claims, the applicant association argues, first,
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain           that the contested decision must be annulled on the ground
    lactoproteins (caseins and caseinates) intended for human con-        that it lacks any legal basis for refusal to pay the Community
    sumption (OJ 1983 L 237, p. 25).                                      contributions referred to in it. The applicant maintains in that
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 of 10 October 1990             connection that the existence of any debts which may be due
    on aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed       to the Commission from the applicant in the context of the
    milk (OJ 1990 L 279, p. 22).                                          MED programmes cannot constitute a permissible ground for
                                                                          suspending payment of the subsidies in issue. In the applicant’s
                                                                          view, there exists no general rule on which the Commission
                                                                          can base its decision. At all events, it is not permissible for the


title: Case T-30/15: Action brought on 20 January 2015 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/36

         Action brought on 20 January 2015 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)
   (Case T-30/15)
   (2015/C 089/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘INFINITY’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 35  478

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 2308/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and grant the trademark applied for;

               —

               Order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8.1.b) and 8.5 of the Regulation (CE) No 40/94.


title: Case C-552/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — WIND INNOVATION 1 EOOD, in liquidation v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — WIND INNOVATION 1 EOOD, in liquidation v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
   (Case C-552/16)
   (2017/C 022/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: WIND INNOVATION 1 EOOD, in liquidation

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112/ЕC (1) to be interpreted as precluding an amendment to the ZDDS (Law on VAT) as at 1 January 2007, which provides for the compulsory removal of a person from the VAT register, and the loss of the court-appointed liquidator’s right to decide that the legal person whose dissolution has been ordered by a court decision is to continue to be registered under the ZDDS until its deletion from the companies register, and which instead makes dissolution of a commercially active legal person, by reason of liquidation or otherwise, a ground for compulsory removal from the VAT register?

               2.

               Is the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112/ЕC to be interpreted as precluding compulsory removal from the VAT register under an amendment to the ZDDS (Law on VAT) as at 1 January 2007 where, at the time of compulsory removal from the VAT register, the taxable person meets the conditions for compulsory re-registration for VAT, the taxable person is party to current contracts and states that it has not ceased business and continues to carry on an economic activity, and where the taxable person must actually pay the tax calculated and payable upon the compulsory removal in order to retain entitlement to deduct VAT input tax on assets taxed upon removal from the register and available on subsequent registration? If compulsory removal from the register under the circumstances set out is permissible, may entitlement to deduct input tax on assets taxed upon removal from the register, which are available on the subsequent registration for VAT and with which the person effects or will effect taxable transactions, be made dependent on the actual payment of the tax to the exchequer or may the tax calculated upon removal from the register be set off against the amount of tax credit determined on subsequent registration for VAT, in particular where the tax is payable by a person in respect of whom entitlement to deduct input tax arises …?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

      OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-719/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Lico Leasing and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/48

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Lico Leasing and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión v Commission
   (Case T-719/13)
   2014/C 52/93
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Lico Leasing, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA (Madrid) (represented by: M. Sánchez and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision on the ground that it is vitiated by errors in that it finds that the STLS [Spanish Tax Lease System] is a State aid scheme that benefits the EIGs [Economic Interest Groupings] and their investors, and also by defects in reasoning;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the order for recovery of the aid granted through the STLS on the ground that it is contrary to the general principles of the European Union legal order;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the point in the order for recovery concerning the calculation of the amount of incompatible aid to be recovered in so far as it prevents Spain from determining the formula for calculating that amount in accordance with the general principles applicable to the recovery of State aid, and

               —

               award the applicants all the costs incurred by them in connection with this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU

                           —

                           The measure in question satisfies the condition of selectivity: the applicants claim, first, that the Decision is vitiated by an error in that it identifies sectorial selectivity since the measure that is the subject of the Decision was open to investors operating in all sectors of the economy and, secondly, that the Decision is vitiated by an error in that it concludes that a prior authorisation procedure can confer selectivity, without taking into consideration that the prior authorisation was justified by the complexity of the measure in question and, in any case, does not concern the qualities of the alleged beneficiaries.

                           —

                           The measure in question satisfies the conditions relating to distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States; the applicants claim, in particular, that the Decision does not explain how the alleged State aid would have an effect on the markets referred to and confines itself to asserting the fact without proving it.

                     In addition, in the second part of this plea for annulment, the applicants submit that the Decision is vitiated by a defect in reasoning, in that it does not explain why the benefit retained by the alleged beneficiaries constitutes State aid when those beneficiaries merely shared the benefit obtained by the shipowners, which, as the Commission itself recognises, does not constitute State aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the order for recovery contained in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Decision must be annulled pursuant to the following general principles of European Union law:

                                       —

                                       Principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in particular, on the ground that the letter sent by Commissioner Kroes in 2009 gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the operators as to the lawfulness of the STLS.

                                       —

                                       In the alternative, should the order for recovery not be found to be contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, [the order for recovery must be annulled pursuant to the] principle of legal certainty since, owing to certain circumstances, the uncertainty as to the lawfulness of the STLS initially created by the Brittany Ferries decision became prolonged and intensified during the period the STLS was in force.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles applicable to recovery of State aid

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested Decision does not observe the general principles applicable to the recovery of State aid inasmuch as it may lead to the recovery of an amount greater than the alleged aid in fact received by the beneficiaries being required from them.


title: Case C-237/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari) — Enirisorse SpA v Sotacarbo SpA (State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — Definition of aid — Shareholding of a public undertaking in the capital of a private undertaking — Right of withdrawal subject to a prior relinquishment of all claims over a company's assets)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari) — Enirisorse SpA v Sotacarbo SpA
   (Case C-237/04) (1)

   (State aid - Articles 87 EC and 88 EC - Definition of aid - Shareholding of a public undertaking in the capital of a private undertaking - Right of withdrawal subject to a prior relinquishment of all claims over a company's assets)
   (2006/C 131/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enirisorse SpA

      Defendant: Sotacarbo SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Cagliari — Interpretation of Articles 87 and 88(3) EC — Meaning of State aid — Public undertaking holding shares in the capital of a private undertaking — Compatibility of national rules authorising such a shareholding with Articles 43 and 49 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whereby members of a company controlled by the State may, in derogation from the general law, withdraw from that company on condition that they relinquish all claims over that company's assets, are not liable to be considered to be State aid for the purposes of Article 87 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 07.08.2004.


title: Case T-247/17: Action brought on 27 April 2017 — Azarov v Council

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/43

         Action brought on 27 April 2017 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-247/17)
   (2017/C 195/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               adopt, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, certain measures of organisation of procedure, in particular:

                           —

                           questions to the Council;

                           —

                           call on the Council to state its position, in writing or orally, on certain aspects of the dispute;

                           —

                           send requests for information to the Council and third parties, inter alia, the Commission, EADS and Ukraine;

                           —

                           request documents or evidence relating to the case to be produced;

               —

               order the Council, in accordance with Article 87 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights
               In the context of that plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the right to property and infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. It also criticizes the disproportionality of the restrictive measures imposed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment


title: Case T-523/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/21

         Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)
   (Case T-523/14)
   2014/C 329/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul and declare inapplicable the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 and, consequently, declare that:

                           —

                           the party that brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013 was Squeeze Life, S.L., and not the applicant for a Community trade mark, Evolution Fresh, Inc.;

                           —

                           as a consequence of the above, declare final the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, and therefore, declare Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ rejected in respect of the goods in Class 32 and, in part, the services in Class 35;

               —

               stay conversion procedure No 8311048, which is pending before the ‘Division of Recordals’ of OHIM, until final judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, and remit the appropriate communication to the ‘Division of Recordals’ in order for it to stay the conversion proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Evolution Fresh, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘ZUMIT SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 31, 32 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Took note of the withdrawal of the Community trade mark application and closed the appeal and opposition proceedings

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 108 et seq. of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-829/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/55

         Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament
   (Case T-829/16)
   (2017/C 022/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision D106185 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016, notified by Mr [X] on 26 September 2016, declaring ineligible the expenditure resulting from the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign;

               —

               order the Bureau of the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from the fact that neither the material in the case file nor the objections of the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (‘MENL’) were brought to the attention of the Bureau of the European Parliament.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the concept of ‘indirect funding’ of national parties by European parties is an imprecise concept that is contrary to all legal certainty.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging that the logo featuring on the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign (‘the logo at issue’) conveys on national territories an exclusively European campaign, contrary to the view taken by the defendant in adopting the decision which the present action seeks to have annulled. In support of this plea, the applicant primarily puts forward three arguments, namely:

                           —

                           the campaign was orchestrated by MENL alone, without agreement or involvement of the national parties;

                           —

                           the campaign and the poster concern a problem of European scope which is that of the Schengen agreements;

                           —

                           the logo at issue is therefore not the logo of the national parties but the logo of the delegations of those parties within the European Parliament.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the logo at issue is of much smaller size than MENL’s logo. However, the case-law and the texts dealing with the question provide for sanctions only in respect of national logos of a size greater than or equal to that of the European logos.