title: Action brought on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard against the European Parliament (Case T-109/96)

text:
No C 294/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5 . 10 . 96
Action brought on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard                   auxiliary staff within the meaning of the conditions of
               against the European Parliament                       employment of other servants, a status that the applicant
                                                                     cannot have in view of the terms on which she was
                       ( Case T- 109/96 )
                                                                     employed . In contrast to the conditions laid down in
                         ( 96/C 294/23 )                             Article 52 of the conditions of employment of other
                                                                     servants, she had been engaged frequently every year since
                (Language of the Case: French)                       1976 . In addition, the duties that she assumed do not fall
                                                                     within the circumstances referred to in Article 52 ( a ).
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Secondly, Article 78 of the conditions of employment of
Communities on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard,                     other servants cannot in any way provide a basis for
resident in Heidelberg ( Germany ), represented by Thierry           Parliament's unilateral adoption of rules specific to
Schmitt and Pierre Soler-Couteaux, of the Strasbourg                 conference interpreters having the status»of auxiliary staff
Bar .
                                                                     for the purposes of the conditions of employment of other
                                                                     servants . It is not its task to determine unilaterally the status
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         of auxiliary staff, since that power belongs exclusively to the
                                                                     Council of Ministers under Article 212 of the Treaty as
— annul the decision of 10 June 1996 taken by the
                                                                     amended by Article 24 of the Merger Treaty.
     Secretary-General of the European Parliament rejecting
     her complaint,
                                                                     Finally, the applicant's liability to Community tax results
                                                                     solely from her accepting, by way of agreement, the
— declare income earned by her to be exempt from                     conditions laid down by Parliament. An agreement
     Community tax and order repayment of tax paid,                  constitutes a totally inadequate legal basis, in the area of
     together with interest at the rate laid down by law,            taxation, for justifying the imposition of Community tax
                                                                     and exemption from national income tax, since
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs .                   determination of the tax status of residents is pre-eminently
                                                                     an aspect of State sovereignty . A Community institution 's
                                                                     power to organize its own affairs cannot prejudice
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     Article 13 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities
                                                                     of the European Communities and the regulations giving
The applicant contests the decision of the Secretary-General         effect to it .
of the European Parliament rejecting her complaint against
the levying of Community tax on remuneration paid in
respect of her duties as a conference interpreter at the
Parliament .
The applicant was engaged from 6 to 9 November 1 995 and
from 11 to 14 December 1995 as a conference interpreter
for meetings organized by the European institutions in
Luxembourg ( in this case the European Parliament ).                 Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Dominique-Francois
According to the letters appointing her and confirming her                  Bareth against the Committee of the Regions
engagement, she was to perform her duties as an interpreter                                    ( Case T-110/96 )
pursuant to the rules on remuneration , allowances and                                           ( 96/C 294/24 )
expenses payable to conference interpreters applicable to
the institution for which she performed the services .
Parliament took the contested decision when replying to the                           (Language of the case: French)
invoices corresponding to the above dates, in which the
applicant had expressly requested payment of the
remuneration due to her without deduction of Community               An action against the Committee of the Regions was
tax . The legal basis for that decision was that the applicant       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
was subject to the ' Rules of the European Parliament                Communities on 22 July 1996 by Dominique-Francois
applicable to auxiliary session interpreters adopted under           Bareth, residing in Brussels , represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
Article 78 of the conditions of employment of other servants         Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of the Brussels Bar,
jof the European Communities'. Since Article 78 falls within         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Title III of the conditions of employment of other servants,         Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 , rue Glesener .
which deals with auxiliary staff, it follows, according to the
Parliament, that staff recruited on the basis of that
provision, must, like all auxiliary staff, be liable to              The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Community tax .
                                                                     — annul the decisions not to appoint the applicant to one of
In the applicant's view, those reasons for refusal are                   the posts filled at the end of internal competition
manifestly unlawful . First, Article 78 applies only to                  A/02/95 ,


title: Case C-552/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Canon Europa NV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-34/11: Canon Europa NV v European Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/27

         Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Canon Europa NV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-34/11: Canon Europa NV v European Commission
   (Case C-552/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-34/11;

               —

               rule that the appeal is admissible;

               —

               return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is based on the following two grounds:
   First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.
   Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.


10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/23
2. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                        Removal from the register of Case C-218/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 163/43)
In the Commission’s view, the practice followed in Austria
does not accord with the principle of proportionality (Article           By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of
30 EC). That practice fails to take account of the fact that             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
vitamins and mineral nutrients may be harmful to a greater or            from the register of Case C-218/99: Commission of the
lesser degree. It would be less restrictive to fix a limit for each      European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
individual mineral nutrient and to require any preparation
with a nutrient content in excess of that limit to be classified         (1) OJ C 266 of 7.8.1999.
as a medicinal product. It seems too sweeping, therefore, to
take the daily dose alone as the determining criterion.
At the same time, the practice referred to fails to take account
of the fact that the Member State concerned is required to
state, in relation to each individual product, that it constitutes
a serious health risk. It is unacceptable to require the applicant
to prove that a substance is not harmful, since it is for the                   Removal from the register of Case C-361/99 (1)
Member State itself to show that a higher concentration
presents a health risk where the critical limits accepted by the                                 (2000/C 163/44)
scientific bodies are not reached.
                                                                         By order of 16 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-361/99 (reference for a preliminary
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/99 (1)                    ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien):
                         (2000/C 163/41)                                 Silveria Gäng v Republic of Austria.
By order of 13 March 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
from the register of Case C-406/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-438/98 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-221/98 (1)                                            (2000/C 163/45)
                         (2000/C 163/42)
                                                                         By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the First Chamber
By order of 14 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has                  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-438/98:
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-221/98:                  Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.                Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 278 of 14.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


C 118/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-368/99 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-343/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/82)                                                       (2001/C 118/85)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-368/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-343/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: La Che-          European Communities v France.
mise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-378/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/83)                                                       (2001/C 118/86)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 23 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-378/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/84)                                                       (2001/C 118/87)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 25 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/00: (reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-335/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Stratford): F. Harding v         European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Skandia Asset Management Ltd.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case T-165/13: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2014  — Talanton v Commission (Arbitration clause — Pocemon and Perform contracts concluded as part of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Audit report — No interest in bringing proceedings — Interest in seeking a declaration — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/18

         Order of the General Court of 4 December 2014 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-165/13) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Pocemon and Perform contracts concluded as part of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Repayment of sums paid - Audit report - No interest in bringing proceedings - Interest in seeking a declaration - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 056/24)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, acting as Agents, and L. Athanassiou and G. Gerapetritis, lawyers)

      Re:

   ACTION based on Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking a declaration by the Court, first, that the refusal by the Commission to allow as eligible costs certain sums paid to the applicant by way of the implementation of the Perform and Pocemon grant agreements constitutes a breach by the Commission of its contractual obligations, and, secondly, that there is no need to refund part of those sums, or the amount of the liquidate allowance specified by the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon is ordered to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


C 55/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.98
survivor's pensions for workers provides as follows: A                 Removal from the register of Case C-169/97 (1)
worker who was employed as a worker during the period                                      (98/C 55/43)
between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 and in
respect of whom a contribution was paid of an amount              By order of 18 September 1997 the President of the Court
equivalent to the annual amount referred to in                    of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
paragraph 2, is deemed to have paid sufficient                    removal from the register of Case C-169/97: Commission
contributions to establish that he was normally and               of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
principally employed during the entire period comprised
between the date on which the period of employment                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
established came to an end and 1 January 1946.'
Article 32b(6) of the aforesaid Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 provides as follows: The presumption
laid down in the two aforesaid paragraphs is rebuttable
only in respect of periods for which the person concerned               Removal from the register of Case C-193/96 (1)
can claim a pension under another Belgian scheme, with                                     (98/C 55/44)
the exception of the scheme for self-employed workers, or
under the scheme of a foreign country.'                           By order of 25 September 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Is a provision such as Article 32b(6) of the Royal Decree         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of 21 December 1967 a provision on reduction,                     Case C-193/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a        the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Richard Buchen GmbH v.
Member State, as referred to in Article 46b(2) of                 Bezirksregierung Köln.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which does not apply to a
benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i)?        (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (1)
                         (98/C 55/42)                                                      (98/C 55/45)
By order of 12 September 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the            of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (reference for         removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                    a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo): ICT Ð InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio TeÃxtil SA v.       Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)): Fazenda
Fazenda PuÂblica.                                                 PuÂblica v. AssociacËaÄo Nacional de Transportes PuÂblicos
                                                                  RodoviaÂrios de Mercadorias (Antram) in the presence of
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                          MinisteÂrio PuÂblico.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.


title: Case T-275/02: Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against European Investment Bank

text:
C 261/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against
                                                                                European Investment Bank
—     annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter
      of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the                                        (Case T-275/02)
      correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67;
—     order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred                                        (2002/C 261/38)
      by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including
      in respect of lawyers’ fees.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
                                                                         lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of
11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85 05 03 066 (hereafter ‘ERDF
No 66’) — ‘Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante’ —
by which the European Commission reduced the amount of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the contribution initially granted for completion of the project
in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment
of the balance relating to earlier related ERDF action                   —     declare the present action admissible and well founded;
No 85 05 03 067 (hereafter ‘ERDF No 67’) — ‘Rail link —
Naples Town Centre’. The contested decision accepted a level             —     annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment
of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and                Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month
actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution                    extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between
initially agreed by the defendant.                                             the parties;
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Investment Bank
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the                  dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002,
principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of                     unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with
fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.                               effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment
                                                                               contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay to the
The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:                       applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way
                                                                               of damages;
—     gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate
      expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the            —     order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
      possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount,
      since the work covered by the intervention had been
      completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure —
      actually incurred and properly accounted for — were on
      the whole not less than the initial planned investment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of
      ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution               The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the
      provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground            probation period to be worked for the defendant, together
      that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in            with its unilateral termination of the applicant’s employment
      that it was erroneously already attributed to the new              contract at the end of that period.
      intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred
      was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by
      the defendant, that the work had been completed in
      accordance with the project.                                       In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither
                                                                               the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 261/21
      Bank provide for any extension of the probation period;                  Removal from the register of Case T-50/01 ( 1)
      the bank cannot claim that there has been an amendment
      in that regard.                                                                          (2002/C 261/39)
—     Infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, in that                          (Language of the Case: English)
      the Bank did not exercise, within the probation period,
      its right of termination without requiring to give reasons
      and with 15 days’ notice and the defendant cannot
      unilaterally modify the terms of the contract.                   By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       ordered the removal from the register of Case T-50/01:
The applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard        Saffron Investments N.V. v Commission of the European
for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle that          Communities.
legitimate expectations be protected.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.


title: Case T-605/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014  — Novartis v OHIM — Dr Organic (BIOCERT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BIOCERT — Earlier national word mark BIOCEF — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2014 — Novartis v OHIM — Dr Organic (BIOCERT)
   (Case T-605/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BIOCERT - Earlier national word mark BIOCEF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 034/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dr Organic Ltd (Swansea, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Dr Organic Ltd.

      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 28 September 2011 (Case R 1030/2010-4).

               2)

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-337/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — CSF v Commission (Approximation of the laws — Directive 2006/42/EC — Machinery bearing the ‘EC’ marking — Essential safety requirements — Risks to the safety of persons — Safeguard clause — Commission decision declaring a national measure prohibiting the placing on the market to be justified — Conditions governing the implementation of the safeguard clause — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — CSF v Commission
   (Case T-337/13) (1)

   ((Approximation of the laws - Directive 2006/42/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘EC’ marking - Essential safety requirements - Risks to the safety of persons - Safeguard clause - Commission decision declaring a national measure prohibiting the placing on the market to be justified - Conditions governing the implementation of the safeguard clause - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 302/61)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, and M. Pappalardo, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Wolff, then M. Wolff, C. Thorning, U. Melgaard and N. Lyshøj, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013 on a measure taken by Denmark according to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CSF Srl to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action and the proceedings for interim relief;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Case T-54/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil — Earlier Community figurative mark natura selection — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)
   (Case T-54/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil - Earlier Community figurative mark natura selection - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 145/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 (Case R 1787/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Natura Selection, SL and XXXLutz Marken Gmb.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders XXXLutz Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-170/96)

text:
  20 . 7 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 210/7
        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
        same provisions,                                                 European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                                              ( Case C-1 70/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 15 )
  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the              Communities on 15 May 1 996 by the Commission of the
 Directive expired on 31 October 1993 ,                                  European Communities, represented by Pieter Van Nuffel ,
                                                                         acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 (') OJ No L 22 7, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of
 (2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.                               the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Act of the Council of 4 March 1996 entitled
                                                                             'Joint action on airport transit arrangements ' ('),
 Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 — order the Council to pay the costs .
                          ( Case C- 1 69/96 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                            ( 96/C 210/14
                                                                        — Infringement of the EC Treaty :
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  The matters governed by the contested Act fall within
 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the competence of the European Community and not
 Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      within the area of cooperation in the fields of justice and
 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                  home affairs ( CJHA ). Where the EC Treaty confers
 at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service ,            powers on the institutions , they may only exercise them
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    in accordance with that Treaty; they may not legally
                                                                             exercise them within any other framework , even a
                                                                             framework established by the Treaty on European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 Union .
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              As regards Articles 3 and 4 and the Annex to the
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 contested Act, the Commission considers that the
      comply with Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of                         underlying interpretation, to the effect that travellers
       25 November 1993 laying down Annex VII D ,                            ( ordinarily ) remaining within the international areas of
      containing information required for the technical                      airports do not cross an external frontier of a Member
       dossier referred to in Article         12 of the seventh              State, is erroneous; the criterion employed by
      amendment of Council Directive 67/548/EEC ('), the                     Article 100c of the EC Treaty is not the crossing of a
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               checkpoint. It is clear from a systematic interpretation of
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                     the relevant provisions that airport transit visas form an
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 93/105/EEC,                          integral part of the provisions relating to visa policy as a
                                                                             whole ; that policy falls, in principle , within the sphere of
— declare , in the alternative , that by failing to inform the               CJHA, save in two respects, one of which is the
      Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese                         determination of the list of third countries concerned .
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      same provisions,                                                       As regards Article 2(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the contested Act, the
                                                                             Commission considers that, having regard to their real
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                           meaning, those provisions — which , read in isolation ,
                                                                             fall within the area of CJHA — are covered by the
                                                                             Community's power to adopt provisions which are
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              ancillary to matters falling within the competence of the
                                                                             Community.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the                   As regards Article 2 ( 3 ), this simply repeats, within the
Directive expired on 31 December 1993 .                                      framework of CJHA, an obligation which already arises
                                                                             from Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1683/95 ( 2 ).
(') OJ No L 294, 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             — Breach of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                             The choice of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European
                                                                             Union as the legal basis for the Act of 4 March 199 6 ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 7 . 96
      instead of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, has resulted in a        Action brought on 29 May 1996 by the Federal Republic of
      breach of the essential procedural requirements laid               Germany against the Commission of the European
      down by that provision . Thus :                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-182/96 )
      — the Act was adopted without the submission of a
           proposal by the Commission ( it was adopted on the                                          96/C 210/ 17 )
           initiative of the French Republic ),
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
      — the Act was adopted without the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
           Parliament being consulted ; the European                     European Communities on 29 May 1996 by the Federal
           Parliament     was     not    even   informed   of   the      Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
           initiative ,                                                  Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
                                                                         and Sabine Maass, probationary Regierungsràtin in the
      — since the Council chose to act within the framework              same Ministry.
           of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, its
           decision should have been unanimous, whereas, on
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the basis of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, the Act
           could ( from 1 January 1996 ) have been adopted by a          — annul Decision (K 96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
           qualified majority, pursuant to Article 100c ( 3 ) of               13 March 1 996 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
           the EC Treaty,                                                      depreciation favouring German undertakings,
      — by adopting the Act of 4 March 1996 in the
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           form of 'joint action', the Council created a
           misunderstanding as to the precise legal nature of the
           instrument .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
( ] ) 96/ 197/JHA, OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
( 2 ) OJ No L 164, 14 . 7 . 1995 , p . 1 .                               in Case C-46/96(M .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p . 4 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
21 March 1996, in the case of Georg Wilkens v.                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                 Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover                          Genova — Sezione prima civile — by an order of 9 May
                           ( Case C-181 /96 )                            1996 in the case of Icat Food SRL and Ministero delle
                                                                                Finanze dello Stato
                             ( 96/C 210/16 )
                                                                                ( Case C-183 /96 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                               ( 96/C 210/ 18 )
European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court ) of 21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court               European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
Registry on 29 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                    Genova — Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
the case of Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer                       Civil Section ) of 9 May 1996 which was received at the
( Chamber of Agriculture ) Hannover on the following                     Court Registry on 30 May 1996 . The grounds of the order
questions :                                                              and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are the
                                                                         same as in Case C-47/95 , inter alia (') .
 1 . Does the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84, as amended by                       f 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 1 ), preclude granting a
       provisional special reference quantity to producers who
       have been asked to repay a non-marketing or conversion
       premium on account of a breach of the undertaking
       given by them ?
                                                                         Action brought on 31 May 1996 by the Commission of the
2 . If so, is that rule compatible with the Community law                      European Communities against the French Republic
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
       and proportionality ?                                                                      ( Case C-l 84/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 19 )
 (!) OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 35 .
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 31 May 1 996 by the Commission of


title: Case C-131/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 March 2010 — Corman SA v Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 March 2010 — Corman SA v Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-131/10)
   2010/C 148/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corman SA

      Defendant: Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the provisions of [Commission] Regulation No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs, (1) a regulation which implements [Council] Regulation No 1255/99 [of 17 May 1999 ] on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, (2) be regarded as constituting sectoral Community rules derogating from Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (3) and preventing the application of national provisions on limitation?

               2.

               Must Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 be construed as only applying to instances where the irregularity is committed by the recipient of the subsidy, whilst the general rule of limitation after four years applies in all cases of irregularities committed by persons with whom the recipient has entered into contracts, in view of the maximum period of four years applicable to the [Community] rules governing contracting parties under the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 350, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 160, p. 48.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-42/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  13 January 2006  — Komninou and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State's conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Treatment of the complaint by the Commission — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 — Komninou and Others v Commission
   (Case T-42/04) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State's conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Treatment of the complaint by the Commission - Principle of sound administration)
   (2006/C 86/57)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Léonidas Grepis, Nikolaos Grepis, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoïs Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi, Konstantinos Bolossis and Thomas Bolossis (Parga, Greece) (represented by: P. Stroumpos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)
   Application for
   Compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants because of the Commission's conduct in the treatment of their complaint concerning alleged infringements by the Hellenic Republic of Community environment law.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 3.4.2004


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2000 in Case C-228/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias): Charalampos Dounias v Ypourgou Oikonomikon (Taxes on imported goods — Taxable value — Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 90 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80)

text:
29.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 122/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      property and, by way of exception, to exempt only lettings of
                                                                             immovable property to be used for dwelling purposes.
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                         of 3 February 2000
in Case C-12/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca): Miguel Amen-
                gual Far v Juan Amengual Far (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Sixth VAT Directive — Leasing or letting of immovable
                      property — Exemptions)                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 122/01)                                                           of 3 February 2000
                                                                             in Case C-228/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias): Charalampos Dounias v
                                                                                Ypourgou Oikonomikon (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Taxes on imported goods — Taxable value — Articles 30
                    in the European Court Reports)                           and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28
                                                                                EC and 90 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80)
In Case C-12/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Audiencia Provincial                                         (2000/C 122/02)
de Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Miguel                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Amengual Far and Juan Amengual Far — on the interpretation
of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of                                       in the European Court Reports)
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,
p. 1) the Court (Second Chamber) composed of: R. Schintgen,                  In Case C-228/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and V. Skou-                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Symvoulio tis
ris, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,           Epikrateias (Hellenic Republic), for a preliminary ruling in the
has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, on which it ruled:                  proceedings pending before that court between Charalampos
                                                                             Dounias and Ypourgou Oikonomikon — on the interpretation
Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                of Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   Articles 28 EC and 90 EC) and of Council Regulation (EEC)
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added             No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for
tax: uniform basis of assessment allows Member States, by means of           customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 134, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth
a general rule, to subject to value added tax lettings of immovable          Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/2                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.4.2000
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment                                            of 10 February 2000
on 11 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                              in Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97 (reference for a
                                                                              preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt
1. Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
                                                                              am Main): Deutsche Post AG v Gesellschaft für Zahlungs-
    EC) precludes national legislation, such as that in issue in the
                                                                              systeme mbH (GZS) (C-147/97) and Citicorp Kartenser-
    main proceedings, which provides for a method of calculating
                                                                                vice GmbH (C-148/97) (1)
    taxable value for the purposes of levying turnover tax, stamp
    duty and a special consumption tax, if that method varies
                                                                              (Public undertaking — Postal service — Non-physical
    according to whether the products on which tax is to be levied are
                                                                                remail)
    domestic or imported, the latter being taxed more heavily. The
    reference made in the national legislation to Council Regulation
                                                                                (2000/C 122/03)
    (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods
    for customs purposes, for the purposes of determining the taxable
    value of goods from other Member States, is not per se contrary                               (Language of the case: German)
    to the EC Treaty.
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2. Article 95 of the Treaty and Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty                                 in the European Court Reports)
    (now, after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25 EC) preclude
    national legislation on the application of a tax, such as the             In Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97: reference to the
    compensatory tax in issue in the main proceedings, which                  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
    provides that it is payable on goods from another Member State            by the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am
    but not on equivalent goods produced in the national territory.           Main, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                              pending before that court brought by Deutsche Post AG against
                                                                              Gesellschaft für Zahlungssysteme mbH (GZS) (C-147/97)
3. Regulation No 1224/80 does not apply to trade between the                  and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH (C-148/97) — on the
    Member States.                                                            interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 10 EC),
4. Community law precludes national legislation requiring customs             Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
    authorities to retain imported goods where the amount of tax              Articles 28 EC and 49 EC) and Articles 85, 86 and 90(1) and
    required is challenged, unless the interested party pays that             (2) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86(1) and
    amount, if that procedure is less favourable than the procedure           (2) EC) — the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
    for similar domestic actions or if, in practice, it renders the           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
    importation of goods by that person from other Member States              (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-
    virtually impossible or excessively difficult.                            mann, J.P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                              M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General: A. La Pergola;
                                                                              H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
5. The Treaty does not preclude a provision of national law which             judgment on 10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:
    requires disputes concerning the levying of taxes on imported
    goods to be resolved by administrative procedure, which may               In the absence of an agreement between the postal services of the
    affect the importation of goods, provided that there is no                Member States concerned fixing terminal dues in relation to the
    comparable procedure for disputes concerning domestic goods               actual costs of processing and delivering incoming trans-border mail,
    which is more favourable and that where the administrative                it is not contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC),
    authorities refuse or restrict the importation of goods, a judicial       read in conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
    remedy lies against their decision.                                       EC) and Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                              Article 49 EC), for a body such as Deutsche Post AG to exercise the
6. Community law does not preclude a provision of national law                right provided for by Article 25(3) of the Universal Postal Conven-
    pursuant to which, in judicial proceedings where it is sought to          tion, in the version adopted on 14 December 1989, to charge, in the
    establish State liability for damage resulting from a breach of           cases referred to in the second sentence of Article 25(1) and
    Community law in order to obtain compensation, the calling of             Article 25(2) thereof, internal postage on items of mail posted in
    witnesses is possible only in exceptional cases, provided that it         large quantities with the postal services of a Member State other than
    applies also to similar domestic actions and does not prevent             the Member State to which that body belongs. On the other hand,
    individuals from exercising rights conferred by direct effect of          the exercise of such a right is contrary to Article 90(1) of the Treaty,
    Community law.                                                            read in conjunction with Article 86 thereof, in so far as the result is
                                                                              that such a body may demand the entire internal postage applicable
                                                                              in the Member State to which it belongs without deducting the
                                                                              terminal dues corresponding to those items of mail paid by the
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                     abovementioned postal services.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Case T-188/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Solaria — Earlier national figurative mark SOLARTIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)
   (Case T-188/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Solaria - Earlier national figurative mark SOLARTIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 38/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTL Corporación SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Rueda Pascual and A. Zuazo Araluze)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: C. Gutiérrez Martínez, H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DTL Corporación SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-151/89: Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
No C 137/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under                                          (First Chamber)
       Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel
       mesh) as regards the findings therein that the applicant                                 of 6 April 1995
       participated in an agreement defining price and quotas           in Case T-151 /89 : Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés
       on the French market in the period 1981 /82, that it                 SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( l )
       participated after June 1 984 in an agreement having the         (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
       same object on the French market in the period 1 983/84,                                         Treaty)
       and that it participated in an agreement with                                              ( 95/C 137/49 )
       Baustahlgewebe GmbH having as its object the
       application of quotas to its exports to the German
       market;                                                                        (Language of the Case: French)
2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
       by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 57 000;                     In Case T-151 / 89 : Societe des Treillis et Panneaux Soudes
                                                                        SA, established in Puteaux ( France ), represented by Robert
3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining                  Collin and Richard Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an
       claims;                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
4 . orders the Commission to bear its costs and to pay                  the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa , J.
       one-half of the applicant's costs;                               Currall, A. Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for
                                                                        the annulment of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
5 . orders the applicant to bear one-half of its costs.
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                        the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
f 1 ) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                                                        260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                                                                        composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                        Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
                                                                        which the Court:
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           ( First Chamber )                            I . dismisses the application;
                           of 6 April 1995
in Case T-l 50/89 : G. B. Martinelli v. Commission of the
                                                                        2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                    European Communities ( 1 )
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                   («) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                 Treaty)
                             ( 95/C 137/48 )
                  (Language of the Case: Italian)
In Case T-150/89 : G. B. Martinelli, formerly G. B.
Metallurgica SpA, established in Milan ( Italy), represented             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
by Carmelo Maccarone, of the Bergamo Bar, with an                                               (First Chamber)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : E. Traversa , J. Currall and            in Case T-152/89: ILRO SpA v. Commission of the
A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of                                        European Communities ( J )
Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989                          (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                                             Treaty)
( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260, p. 1 .) —                                         ( 95 /C 137/50
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
Kirschner, President of the Chamber, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges,                             (Language of the Case: French)
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                        In Case T-152/89 : ILRO SpA, established in
 I. dismisses the application;                                          Lecco-Pescarenico ( Italy), represented by Maurice Laredo,
                                                                        of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
                                                                        Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( i ) OJ No C 306 , 6 . 12 . 1989 .                                     ( Agents E. Traversa, A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the
                                                                        annulment     of  Commission          Decision 89/515/EEC      of
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of


title: Case C-58/10, Case C-59/10, Case C-60/10, Case C-61/10, Case C-62/10, Case C-63/10, Case C-64/10, Case C-65/10, Case C-66/10, Case C-67/10, Case C-68/10: References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2010 in Cases — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Syndicat des établissements de semences agréés pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Caussade Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Maïsadour Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Ragt Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/26

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2010 in Cases — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Syndicat des établissements de semences agréés pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Caussade Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Maïsadour Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Ragt Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
   ((Case C-58/10) - (Case C-59/10) - (Case C-60/10) - (Case C-61/10) - (Case C-62/10) - (Case C-63/10) - (Case C-64/10) - (Case C-65/10) - (Case C-66/10) - (Case C-67/10) - (Case C-68/10))
   2010/C 100/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC (C-58/10), Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA (C-59/10), Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) (C-60/10), SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian (C-61/10), Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences (C-62/10), Syndicat des établissements de semences agrees pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) (C-63/10), Caussade Semences SA (C-64/10), Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding (C-65/10), Société Maïsadour Semences (C-66/10), Ragt Semences SA (C-67/10), Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop (C-68/10)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a genetically modified organism constituting feed was placed on the market prior to the publication of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (1) and the authorisation is maintained in force pursuant to Article 20 of that regulation, must the product at issue be regarded, before a decision has been taken on the application for new authorisation which must be submitted pursuant to the regulation, as among the products to which the provisions of Article 12 of Directive 2001/18/EC (2) cited in the grounds of the present decision refer and, in that event, is the genetically modified organism subject, with respect to the emergency measures which may be adopted after the issue of authorisation to place it on the market, only to Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 or, on the contrary, may such measures be adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 23 of the directive and the national provisions transposing it?

               2.

               On the assumption that emergency measures may be adopted only within the framework of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, may the authorities of a Member State adopt, and under what circumstances, a measure such as the contested order (3) on grounds of the containment of risk as referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (4) or by way of the interim protective measures which may be adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 54 of the same regulation?

               3.

               On the assumption that the authorities of a Member State may intervene on the basis of Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC or on the basis of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, or on both of those legal bases, the application raises the question as to what degree of requirement, taking into account in particular the precautionary principle, is imposed, respectively, by Article 23 of the directive under which the adoption of emergency measures such as a suspension of the use or provisional prohibition against use of the product is subject to the condition that the Member State must have ‘detailed grounds for considering that a GMO … constitutes a risk to … the environment’ and by Article 34 of the regulation under which the adoption of such a measure is subject to the condition that it be ‘evident’ that the product is ‘likely to constitute a serious risk to … the environment’, in terms of identifying the risk, evaluating its probability and assessing the nature of its effects?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003, L 268, p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001, L 106, p. 1)

      (3)  Order of 5 December 2007 in Case C-58/10; order of 7 February 2008, as amended by the order of 13 February 2008, in Cases C-59/10 to C-68/10.

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002, L 31, p. 1).


title: Case C-232/00: Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/17
transparency. Finland’s view that a political decision of the           Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Valtioneuvosto entitles it to disregard the transparency require-          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
ment is contrary to the directive.
                                                                                (Case C-232/00)
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.
                                                                                (2000/C 247/22)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of
6 April, 17 and 26 May 2000 in the case of Cooperativa                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
LATTEPIU a.r.l. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel
                   mercato agricolo A.I.M.A.
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
                                                                              Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                        (Case C-231/00)                                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
                                                                              to comply fully with Commission Directive 97/38/EC (1)
                        (2000/C 247/21)                                       of 20 June 1997 amending Annex C to Council Directive
                                                                              92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system
                                                                              for the recognition of professional education and training
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC, the Hellenic
European Communities by orders of 6 April, 17 and 26 May                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
2000 by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (Regional                      Treaty and that directive;
Administrative Court), Lazio v Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A. (State Agricultural            2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Market Intervention Body (AIMA)) which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the
following questions:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.   May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
     (EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         each Member State to which they are addressed.
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
2.   If not, are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of        or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                 Community.
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not         It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods              measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     provisions?                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                          (1) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 31.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 1997 in Case T-207/95: Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competitions - Notice of vacancy - Condition of being a temporary member of the temporary staff on the closing date for applications - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Action for damages)

text:
No C 131 / 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc
                        (Fourth Chamber)                               Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue
                       of 5 February 1997                              de Nassau, against the Commission of the European
in Case T-207/95 : Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil v.                  Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
       Commission of the European Communities (')                      application for, first, the annulment of the decision of the
(Officials — Internal competitions — Notice of vacancy                 selection board for competition COM/T/A/95 of
— Condition of being a temporary member of the                         15 November 1994 refusing to admit the applicant to the
temporary staff on the closing date for applications —                 written tests of the competition and of the decision of the
Principle of protection of legitimate expectations —                   Commission of 27 July 1995 not to allow the applicant to
Principle of equal treatment — Duty to have regard for                 take part in an additional internal competition other than
       the welfare of officials — Action for damages)                  competition COM/T/A/95 and, secondly, damages in
                                                                       compensation for the material and non-material damage
                           ( 97IC 131 /29                              suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
               (Language of the case: French)                          Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
In Case T-207/95 : Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, former             5 February 1997, in which it:
member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented                1 . dismisses the application as unfounded;
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                   2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira )                  (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
— application for, first, the annulment of the decision of
the selection board for competition COM/T/B/95 of
7 November 1994 refusing to admit the applicant to the
written tests of the competition and of the decision of the
Commission of 27 July 1995 not to allow the applicant to
take part in an additional internal competition other than               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
competition COM/T/B/95 and, secondly, damages in                                             of 27 February 1997
compensation for the material and non-material damage
suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance                in Case T-106/95 : Fédération Française des Sociétés
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.              d'Assurances ( FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the
Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                                      European Communities ( 1 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   (State aid — Public undertaking — Combined application
5 February 1997, in which it:                                          of Article 92 and Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty —
                                                                       Additional costs arising from performance of particular
1 . dismisses the application as unfounded;                            tasks assigned to the public undertaking — Competitive
                                                                                activities)
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /31 )
(') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-106/95 : Fédération Française des Sociétés d'As
                                                                       surances ( FFSA ), established in Paris, Union des Sociétés
                                                                       Etrangères d'Assurances (USEA), established in Paris,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles ( Groupama ),
                                                                       established in Noisy-le-Grand ( France ), Fédération Natio
                        (Fourth Chamber)                               nale des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances
                       of 5 February 1997                              ( FNSAGA ), established in Paris, Fédération Française des
in Case T-211 /95 : Claudine Petit-Laurent v. Commission
                                                                       Courtiers d'Assurances et de Réassurances ( FCA ),
                                                                       established in Paris, Bureau International des Producteurs
              of the European Communities (')
                                                                       d'Assurances et de Réassurances ( BIPAR ), established in
(Officials — Internal competitions — Notice of vacancy                 Paris, represented by Dominique Voillemot and Marie-Pia
— Condition of being a temporary member of the                         Hutin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
temporary staff on the closing date for applications —                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
Principle of protection of legitimate expectations —                   Goethe, against Commission of the European
Principle of equal treatment — Duty to have regard for                 Communities (Agent: Gérard Rozet), supported by the
       the welfare of officials — Action for damages)                  French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean
                           ( 97/C 131 /30 )                            Marc Belorgey ) and La Poste, established in Boulogne
                                                                       Billancourt (France ), represented by Hervé Lehman, of the
               (Language of the case: French)                          Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue —
In Case T-211 /95 : Claudine Petit-Laurent, former member              application for annulment of the Commission Decision of
of the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                8 February 1 995 , notified to the applicants by letter of


title: Case F-55/07: Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Tiralongo v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/43

         Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Tiralongo v Commission
   (Case F-55/07)
   (2007/C 183/85)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               order the Commission to provide the information and documents relating to the initial engagement of Ms X and to the successive extensions of her contract within the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and order Ms X to testify as a witness;

               —

               adopt all measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry necessary for the purpose of assessing the infringement by the Commission of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

               —

               order the Commission to pay 460 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay 100 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of OLAF up to 30 April 2005, seeks to recover compensation in respect of the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of a series of unlawful acts allegedly committed by the Commission in connection with the extension of his contract. Those unlawful acts ostensibly concern in particular: (i) breach of the applicable legal rules and of the case-law relating to employment in the public service; (ii) infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; (iii) infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.