title: Case T-307/02: Action brought on 7 October 2002 by Altana Pharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)

text:
C 305/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.12.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul Decision R 719/2000-4 of the Fourth Board of
The applicant is contesting Article 3 of the Commission’s                        Appeal of the OHIM of 12 July 2002;
decision of 24 July 2002 in case COMP/E-3/36.700 —
Industrial and medical gases, in so far as it imposes a fine on            —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC. The applicant
is contesting only the fine imposed on it, and is not challenging
the facts established or the legal assessment thereof.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to            The Community trade           The bottle comprises a main sec-
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 ( 1) and Article 253 EC. Fines           mark concerned:               tion with, at its base, a recess, in
to be imposed are to be determined by reference to the                                                   the shape of a slightly truncated
seriousness of the infringement and the duration thereof.                                                cone with, in its flat section, a
According to the applicant, that rule has been applied by the                                            stylised star in relief In the lower
Commission in an inequitable and unreasonable manner. The                                                part of the main section, which is
applicant maintains that undertakings which committed the                                                nearly cylindrical from bottom to
same infringement over the same period should be required,                                               top, there is an initial series of
under the terms of the decision, to pay a much smaller fine.                                             wavy grooves and, in the top
                                                                                part, which is of slightly smaller
                                                                                diameter and bobbin-shaped,
Furthermore, according to the applicant, the Commission, in                                              there are spiralling grooves which
choosing the addressees of the decision, the turnover attribu-                                           form lozenges when seen through
table to each of those addressees and the order to be applied                                            the bottle The upper section,
to the restriction of the fine to 10 % of turnover and the                                               which is the shape of a slightly
leniency rule, adopted a decision which cannot be objectively                                            truncated cone, ends in a cylindri-
justified and which does not justify the considerable differences                                        cal neck with a blue cap — Regis-
in the amounts of the fines imposed.                                                                     tration No 922179
                                                                           Goods or service:             Water (Class 32 of the inter-
The applicant also pleads infringement of the Community                                                  national classification).
principles of equality and proportionality and of the prohib-
ition precluding arbitrariness. According to the applicant,                Decision of the Board of      Refusal of examiner to register the
undertakings involved in a similar measure have been treated               Appeal:                       mark.
in an unequal way.
                                                                           Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (e) of Regulation EEC No 40/
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                                        94.
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition
     1959-1962, p. 87).
                                                                           Action brought on 7 October 2002 by Altana Pharma AG
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by Nestlé Waters                                        Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)
France against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
          Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                  (Case T-307/02)
                         (Case T-305/02)                                                            (2002/C 305/57)
                         (2002/C 305/56)                                   (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                 Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 7 October 2002 by Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz (Germany),
3 October 2002 by Nestlé Waters France, whose registered                   represented by H. Becker, lawyer. N.V. Organon, Oss (Nether-
office is in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by Alain            lands), was an additional party to the proceedings before the
Cléry.                                                                     Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 October 2002 by SGL Carbon AG
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade,                                      (Case T-308/02)
      Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2002 (appeal No R 526/
      2001-1);
                                                                                (2002/C 305/58)
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade, Marks and Designs) to reject opposition                                        (Language of the case: German)
      No B 262651 filed by the opponent.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 7 October 2002 by SGL Carbon
                                                                         AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and
                                                                         F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte.
Party applying for regis-      The applicant (formerly Byk Guld-
tration of the Com-            en Lomberg Chemische Fabrik
munity trade mark:             GmbH)                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark in respect          Word mark ‘XION’ for goods in             —     Annul the decision of 24 July 2002 in so far as it refuses
of which registration is       Class 5 (Medicines) — Application               to facilitate the making of payments;
sought:                        No 1207976
                                                                         —     Annul the decision of 24 July 2002 in so far as it
Proprietor of the trade        N.V. Organon                                    seeks payment of default interest for the period from
mark or sign right relied                                                      24 October 2001 to the date of receipt of the declaration
on in the opposition                                                           of securities at a rate in excess of 6,04 %;
proceedings:
                                                                         —     In the alternative, reduce as appropriate the default
Trade mark or sign right       The national and international                  interest laid down in the decision;
relied on in the oppo-         word mark ‘XYVION’ for goods in
sition proceedings:            Class 5 (inter alia, medicines and        —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                               pharmaceutical preparations for
                               human use)
Decision of Opposition         Rejection of opposition
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Division:
Decision of Board of           The decision of the Opposition            By a decision of 18 July 2001 the Commission imposed a fine
Appeal:                        Division was annulled and the             on the applicant (1). The applicant requested the Commission
                               opposition allowed.                       in October 2001 to set aside the requirement that securities be
                                                                         lodged in respect of the fine claim and ancillary demands, and
Pleas in law:                  —    Infringement                 of      to facilitate the undertaking in making payments in view of
                                    Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation        the difficult economic situation. The Commission turned down
                                    No 40/94 ( 1);                       this request in the decision under challenge, whereupon the
                                                                         applicant lodged the required securities. The Commission is
                               —    The marks are not so similar         seeking increased interest of 8,04 % for the period up to the
                                    as to create a likelihood of         lodgment of the securities.
                                    confusion.
                                                                         The applicant challenges that decision and argues that the
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         Commission committed errors of form and judgment in
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          turning down its request. On formal grounds alone, the
                                                                         Commission, it claims, failed to provide adequate grounds for
                                                                         its negative decision. That decision is also substantively
                                                                         defective in regard to the exercise of judgment as it is not clear
                                                                         that the Commission properly exercised its discretion.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 6, 8.1.2005

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/34

         (2005/C 19/70)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

      OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-479/03: Action brought on 18 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 7/26                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
      notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and                The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-         expired on 8 August 2002.
      tive 2000/9/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.
      installations designed to carry persons, the Hellenic
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg
The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national                                  (Case C-481/03)
law expired on 3 May 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/45)
(1 ) OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p. 21.
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 19 November 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as
                                                                        Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 18 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                     Duchy of Luxembourg                                the Court should:
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-479/03)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of
                           (2004/C 7/44)                                      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
                                                                              Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Com-
                                                                              munity’s railways (1) and Directive 2001/13/EC of the
                                                                              European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
                                                                              2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           licensing of railway undertakings (2) and, in any event, by
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand
ties on 18 November 2003 by the Commission of the                             Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
European Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as                    under those directives;
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and principal arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of            The period prescribed for the transposition of those directives
      the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment             expired on 15 March 2003.
      in commercial transactions (1) and, in any event, by failing
      to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that        (1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
      directive;                                                        (2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-470/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-119/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
16.3.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 68/3
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-119/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                       —     annul the judgment
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                       —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                       (Case C-470/01 P)                                     and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/05)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance              See case C-468/01 P.
of the European Communities in case T-119/00 between
Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in               (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                            Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
—     annul the judgment                                               19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                       of First Instance of the European Communities in case
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance           T-121/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
      and on appeal.                                                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case C-472/01 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 68/07)
See case C-468/01 P.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 21.                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
                                                                       2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in case T-121/00 between Procter
                                                                       & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
19 september 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-120/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                             —     annul the judgment
                       (Case C-471/01 P)                               —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                                                                             and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/06)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of           See case C-468/01 P.
the European Communities in case T-120/00 between Procter
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was                   (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,


title: Case C-276/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Miloud Rimoumi and Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick v Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 26 June 2008 — Miloud Rimoumi and Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick v Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration
   (Case C-276/08)
   (2008/C 236/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal administratif
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Miloud Rimoumi and Gabrielle Suzanne Marie Prick

      Defendant: Ministre des Affaires étrangères et de l'Immigration
   Question referred
   Are Articles 2(2)(a), 3(1) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) to be interpreted as applying only to those family members who acquired that status prior to the date on which the Union citizen, whom they intend to accompany or join, exercised his/her right of free movement conferred by Article 39 of the EC Treaty, or, on the contrary, is any citizen of the Union who has exercised his/her right of free movement and become established in a Member State other than that of which that person is a national entitled to be joined by a family member, without the latter having to satisfy a condition as to the time at which he/she acquired that status?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-409/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — El Fatmi v Council

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/54

         Action brought on 24 September 2008 — El Fatmi v Council
   (Case T-409/08)
   (2008/C 301/90)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: El Fatmi (Vught, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Pulles)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 to be inapplicable and/or declare Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 to be void, in so far as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant asks the Court to declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (1) to be inapplicable to him and Council Decision 2008/583/EC (2) to be void, in so far as it applies to the applicant.
   First, the applicant submits that the Council acted contrary to the requirements of Article 5 EC. The Council had no power, since there is no connection to third countries or to the common market.
   Second, Articles 60, 301 and 308 EC do not confer any power to adopt the contested regulation.
   Third, the Council acted contrary to Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931 of 27 December 2001 (3) and infringed essential procedural requirements and principles of Community law, including the duty to state reasons. According to the applicant, the national decisions on which the Council also relies are not decisions adopted by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Common Position or are decisions that have been annulled on appeal to the national courts.
   Fourth, the Council has infringed the applicant's fundamental rights and in particular the right to respect for private and family life, the right to effective judicial protection and the right to property.

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

      (2)  Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

      (3)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case C-684/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu
   (Case C-684/16)
   (2017/C 104/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

      Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case T-272/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris International Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/45
—     infringes Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Annex VII to the Staff            Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
      Regulations, Opinion No 178/87 of the board of the                 Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European
      heads of administration of 3 December 1987 and                                               Communities
      Articles 3(4) and 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
      No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                                         (Case T-273/01)
      down the conditions and procedure for applying the
      tax for the benefit of the European Communities, as
      interpreted by the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the                                         (2002/C 3/78)
      applicant actually maintains his children and is entitled
      to have benefits, which are paid to his wife in the name                              (Language of the case: German)
      and on behalf of both parents, taken into account when
      calculating tax and calculating the expatriation allowance.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
                                                                         Akademie GmbH, Berlin, represented by Thomas Kreutzfield,
                                                                         lawyer.
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc. against the Commission of the European                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                               Euro 104 790 together with interest of 5 % above
                         (Case T-272/01)                                       the basic rate under paragraph 1 of the Diskontsatz-
                                                                               Überleitungs-Gesetz of 9.6.1998 of the Federal Republic
                           (2002/C 3/77)                                       of Germany from the date on which the proceedings
                                                                               became pending;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc., represented by Mr Jacques Derenne and                The applicant applied via a German bank for promotional
Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing                   funds from the European Commission in order to finance a
Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                            project within the framework of the EU ECIP promotional
                                                                         programme. The subject matter of the applicant’s project was
                                                                         a feasibility study on a joint venture in the area of professional
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              training in India.
—     annul the Contested Act resulting in the filing of the
                                                                         In March 1999 the bank informed the applicant that the
      Complaint on 6 August 2001 before the New York
                                                                         application had been approved with a subsidy of
      District Court against the applicant, as publicly
                                                                         Euro 115 328. The Commission had given that information
      announced by the Commission in Press Release
                                                                         to the bank infomally by telephone. However, the applicant
      IP/01/1193 of 6 August 2001;
                                                                         subsequently received no further information from the Com-
                                                                         mission.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         In 2000 the ECIP project was halted on account of the
                                                                         irregularities within the Commission which had come to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          light in 1999. Despite the above-mentioned agreement, the
                                                                         applicant received no funds from the ECIP project.
The applicant in the present case is the same undertaking as in
case T-377/00 (1). The facts, grounds and main arguments are             The applicant, which, in reliance on the promotion of the
similar to those arising in this case.                                   project, had concluded a contract with a consultancy firm with
                                                                         respect to the feasibility study, claims damages for the loss
                                                                         which it has allegedly incurred and claims that the failure to
(1) Philip Morris International/Commission (OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001,        pay the promotional funds is unlawful and caused the loss
    p. 23).                                                              suffered by it.


title: Case F-63/07: Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Patsarika v Cedefop

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/43

         Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Patsarika v Cedefop
   (Case F-63/07)
   (2007/C 283/78)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Maria Patsarika (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop of 20 September 2006 (ref: Directorate/AMB/2006/380) terminating the applicant's fixed-term contract with Cedefop at the end of her probationary period;

               —

               annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop (16 March 2007), which rejected the applicant's complaint seeking annulment of the abovementioned decision, and which contains the reasons of the appointing authority regarding notice of termination of the applicant's contract (this decision is not the subject of independent challenge);

               —

               order Cedefop to pay damages of an amount equal to the entirety of the applicant's salary, allowances and pension rights corresponding to the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, less the amount of the compensation on dismissal that was granted;

               —

               order Cedefop to pay the applicant damages of EUR 20 000 on account of the non-material harm which she has suffered.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 20 September 2006, Cedefop dismissed the applicant with effect from the end of her probationary period. The applicant submits first of all that case-law was infringed in relation to her probationary period since it was not completed under normal conditions. In addition, the adoption of the decision regarding her dismissal involved a misuse of powers and the exceeding of the limits of the available discretion, and the decision was based on a manifest error of assessment. The assessment report which was drawn up before the end of the applicant's probationary period proposed her dismissal, despite her satisfactory professional efficiency and conduct in the service, because of ‘doubts as to her moral qualities’. Those doubts were based on events unrelated to the relevant period of employment of the applicant, resulting from her testimony as a witness in another case pending before the Civil Service Tribunal. The content of her testimony in that case is demonstrably correct. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward to support the criticisms regarding her supposed professional inadequacy (which is confined to the evaluative assessments of the deputy director of Cedefop). The applicant further submits that her right to be heard and rights of defence were infringed, as were the principles of objectivity and proportionality. The documents upon which the criticisms of her are based were never communicated to her, nor was she invited to attend the hearing (before the Cedefop Appeals Committee) of her complaint.


title: Case C-107/08: Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-107/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/66)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-416/08 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2009 — Apple Computer Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TKS-Teknosoft SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word mark QUARTZ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark QUARTZ — Refusal to register — Similarity between goods — Likelihood of confusion — Appeal clearly inadmissible)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2009 — Apple Computer Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TKS-Teknosoft SA
   (Case C-416/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark QUARTZ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark QUARTZ - Refusal to register - Similarity between goods - Likelihood of confusion - Appeal clearly inadmissible)
   2009/C 282/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Apple Computer Inc. (represented by: M. Hart and N. Kearley, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent), TKS-Teknosoft SA

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2008 in Case T-328/05 Apple Computer v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘QUARTZ’ in respect of goods in classe 9 against decision R 416/2004-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 April 2005 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division partially refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark ‘QUARTZ’ in respect of services in classes 9 and 42.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Apple Computer Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-466/11: Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Ellinika Nafpigia and Hoern Beteiligungs Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Action brought on 23 August 2011 — Ellinika Nafpigia and Hoern Beteiligungs Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung v Commission
   (Case T-466/11)
   2011/C 331/47
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Ellinika Nafpigia AE (Skaramagka, Greece) and Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: K. Khrisogonos and A. Mitsis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010 relating to State aid CR 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) — which constitutes a measure implementing Decision C(2008) 3118 final of 2 July 2008 (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104) concerning recovery of State aid (‘the recovery decision’) — as supplemented, defined and elucidated by the documents and other material on the file;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs;

               —

               in the alternative, interpret, in a binding manner erga omnes and in particular as against the Commission, Decision C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010, as supplemented by the documents and other material on the file, with the meaning defined more specifically in the application, in such a way that it is compatible with Article 17 of the recovery decision upon which the contested decision is founded, with Article 346 TFEU, pursuant to which the contested decision was adopted, with the principles of certitude and of legal certainty and with the rights to freedom of establishment, to freedom to provide services, to freedom to carry on a business and to property, which are infringed by the current interpretation and application of the contested decision by the Commission and the Greek authorities.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   By the first plea for annulment, the applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Article 17 of the recovery decision, since the contested decision affects the military activities of Ellinika Nafpigia AE (Hellenic Shipyards; ‘HSY’) in so far as it requires HSY to sell all of its assets which are today not absolutely necessary, but are nevertheless partly or relatively necessary or can become absolutely necessary in the future for HSY’s military activities.
   By the second plea for annulment, the applicants submit that the contested decision is being misinterpreted — applying Article 346 TFEU incorrectly — as meaning that HSY’s military activities encompass only the current orders of the Greek Navy and not every non-commercial activity of HSY, such as future orders of the Navy or of Greek or other armed forces and any other activity for the construction, supply or repair of defence material.
   By the third plea for annulment, the applicants assert that the contested decision, in breach of the principles of certitude and legal certainty, leaves substantial ambiguities as regards its personal, temporal and material scope, while at the same time it confers a very wide discretion on its implementing bodies, in such a way that it is interpreted as laying down obligations and prohibitions that are not envisaged in the recovery decision, are imposed on persons not liable, are imprecise and inapplicable, or go beyond what is reasonable as determined by the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the applicants consider that the contested decision, in breach of the principles of certitude and legal certainty, is partly incapable of implementation since it imposes measures which, de facto and/or de jure, cannot be implemented in their entirety or in part, while the six-month time-limit imposed for its implementation was also unfeasible and unrealistic from the beginning.
   By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicants contend that the contested decision imposes obligations and prohibitions on HSY and its shareholders in a way that infringes their fundamental rights of freedom of establishment, of freedom to provide services, of freedom to carry on a business and to property, partly without a legal basis therefor and, in any event, going beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of recovery.


title: Case T-247/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/22

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Meica v OHIM — Salumificio Fratelli Beretta (MINIMINI)
   (Case T-247/14)
   2014/C 235/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Barzanò, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February 2014 given in Case R 1159/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘STICK MINIMINI Fratelli Beretta 1812 GLI ORIGINALI’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 0 67  031

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘Mini Wini’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 38 — Community trade mark registration No 3 2 97  835

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 March 2003 in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and territories — Request for establishment of a partnership working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of main action — Urgency — Absence)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/31
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                         of 10 March 2003                                                              of 26 March 2003
                                                                             in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v
in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v                                     Commission of the European Communities
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and
                                                                             territories — Request for establishment of a partnership
(Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French                 working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial
border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the                       inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of
Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the                                        main action — Urgency — Absence)
environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Com-
mission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil
obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal                                                  (2003/C 135/51)
   persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 135/50)
                                                                             In Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands,
                                                                             represented by E. Sharpston, QC, against Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and B. Eggers) —
                                                                             application for interim measures in respect of the ongoing
                                                                             legislative consideration of the Commission’s ‘Proposal for a
                                                                             Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income
                                                                             in the form of interest payments within the Community’
                                                                             (COM/2001/0400 final, OJ 2001 C 270 E, p. 259), submitted
In Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro, established                 on 18 July 2001 and based on Article 94 EC — the President
in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by J. Ariño Barcelona, lawyer,              of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 26 March
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                       2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
G. Valero Jordana), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 13 July 2001 refusing to                       1.    The application is dismissed;
initiate proceedings for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Spain and                        2.    Costs are reserved.
seeking the adoption of measures intended to prevent the
Spanish authorities from implementing their decision of
17 March 1999 concerning the route to be followed by the
Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 10 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                               Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-33/03)
2.     The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
       by the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 135/52)
3.     The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.                        (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                             of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on


title: Case T-281/06: Action brought on 6 October 2006 — Spain v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/62

         Action brought on 6 October 2006 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-281/06)
   (2006/C 294/124)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF in so far as it relates to the subject-matter of this action;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission excluded from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in respect of compensatory aid for bananas.
   The appropriate correction was made for the alleged existence of weaknesses in quality controls and in the determination of marketed quantities of bananas.
   In support of its claims, the applicant State argues that the Commission:

               —

               infringed Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999. It states in that respect that the Spanish authorities correctly applied the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 in force in the years to which the financial correction at issue refer as they were unable to require producers to provide sales invoices for bananas and took into account at the time of calculating the aid a document, the SAD (single administrative document), as evidence of the marketing of bananas. In addition, the Commission has not countered the Spanish authorities' statement to the effect that the quantities of bananas which received aid were in fact marketed, if account is taken of the excess weight which is included in the packaging and other relevant factors.
               So far as concerns quality controls, the applicant State asserts that, in accordance with Article 7 and Annex 1 II.B to Regulation (EC) No 2257/94, the quality inspections observed during the Commission's monitoring visit corresponded with those which the experts of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Autonomous Community of the Canaries carry out on producers' organisations to check that their controls are effective, the basic objective of which was not to ensure that the marketed bananas complied with the appropriate quality requirements;

               —

               was in breach of the principle of proportionality by imposing a pro-rata correction, based exclusively on the assessment of a very low level of risk for the EAGGF, rather than adjusting the financial correction so as to take more account of the hypothetical damage suffered by the EAGGF.


title: Case C-189/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Eridania Sadam S.p.A. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Eridania Sadam S.p.A. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
   (Case C-189/12)
   2012/C 194/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Eridania Sadam S.p.A.

      Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 (1) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘production facilities’ does not include facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it and that, therefore, in the case of facilities such as silos, it is necessary to complete a case-by-case analysis in order to establish whether those facilities are connected with the ‘production line’ or whether they are connected with other activities, different from production, such as packaging?

               2.

               In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?

               3.

               In the further alternative, in any event, are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) [No 968/2006] of 27 June 2006 valid, by the yardstick of the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, if interpreted as including in the concept of ‘production facilities’ or facilities ‘directly related to … production’ those facilities used by sugar companies for packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32


title: Case C-537/08 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2008 by Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen and the Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/34

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2008 by Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen and the Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-537/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (represented by: M. Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, S. Zühlke, Rechtsanwältin, und P. Werner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Freistaat Thüringen, Federal Republic of Germany, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 in Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, in so far as it concerns measures 15 and 26 and the decision on costs;

               —

               annul Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (1), as well as Article 2 thereof in so far as it concerns measures 15 and 26, at least in so far as it orders the recovery of measures 15 and 26;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it holds that the employment promotion grants received conferred an advantage on the appellant and therefore must be recovered;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the cost of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The current appeal is lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing the action brought by the appellant against Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH.
   The appellant relies on two main pleas in law and one alternative plea in law. The appellant submits that the judgment infringes Community law by wrongly applying the fundamental principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. Even if the Court of Justice were not to uphold those pleas, certain findings in the judgment in any event constitute an infringement of Article 87(1) EC.

      As regards the first plea in law, the judgment of the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that, right from the beginning, the aid scheme approved by the Commission covering the programme of the Land of Thuringia for investments by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) contained restrictions in respect of firms in difficulty and the aid scheme under Paragraph 249h of the Arbeitsförderungsgesetz (Law on the promotion of employment; ‘the AFG’) approved by the Commission excluded private undertakings from its scope.

      As regards the second plea in law, the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by holding that the absence of explicit restrictions in the versions of the Commission decision approving the programme of the Land of Thuringia for investments by SMEs or, as the case may be, the Commission decision finding that Paragraph 249h AFG does not contain State aid published in the Official Journal or otherwise publicly available could not give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the appellant that the measure was lawful and that, consequently, the appellant could be expected to keep itself informed — by looking beyond the documents that were publicly available — as to whether the grant of the aid that it had been awarded was lawful.

      Finally, as regards the third, alternative plea, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 87 EC when it found — without undertaking an assessment of the actual savings made by the appellant — that, because of the measure at issue, the appellant enjoyed an advantage relevant in State aid law in the amount of the grant received.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12.


title: Case C-440/06: Action brought on 24 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/9

         Action brought on 24 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-440/06)
   (2006/C 310/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment by failing to ensure that 24 agglomerations are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water meeting the requirements of Article 3 and/or urban waste water treatment systems satisfying the requirements of Article 4;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 3 of Directive 91/271/EEC requires Member States to ensure that all agglomerations of a certain size are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water. Article 4 of the Directive also provides that Member States are to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment (or an equivalent treatment) within the meaning of Article 2(8) of the Directive.
   This case concerns the breach of two specific obligations on the part of the Hellenic Republic, provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC: first, the requirement that there should be a collecting system for urban waste water by 31 December 2000 in all agglomerations with a population of more than 15 000 before 31 December 2000 in accordance with Article 3 of the Directive; second, the requirement that all urban waste water discharged into collecting systems should be subject to secondary treatment by 31 December 2000 in agglomerations with a population of more than 15 000.
   By the end of the period laid down by the Commission in the statement of reasons in its opinion (13 September 2005), 24 agglomerations in Greece did not have a collecting system for urban waste water and/or a treatment system for urban waste water as required by the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40.


title: Case T-129/06: Action brought on 26 April 2006 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/29

         Action brought on 26 April 2006 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission
   (Case T-129/06)
   (2006/C 212/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Cankaya/Ankara, Turkey) and M. Akar (Cankaya/Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: C. Sahin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Reservation of rights to bring a claim for damages;

               —

               Suspension, as a matter of priority, of implementation of the procedure with regard to the subject-matter of the present proceedings;

               —

               Annulment of the procedure of 23 December 2005 with the number MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are contesting the decision of the European Commission Delegation in Turkey of 23 December 2005 which was addressed to the applicants with regard to the call for tenders in respect of the construction of educational establishments in the provinces of Diyarbakir and Siirt.
   The applicants submit, inter alia, that their tender was the lowest and that the file in respect thereof was complete and therefore the contract should have been awarded to them. Furthermore, they submit that the contested decision infringes European Union law.


title: Case C-394/06: Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-394/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/54)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-432/05: Action brought on  8 December 2005  — EMC Development v Commission

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/34

         Action brought on 8 December 2005 — EMC Development v Commission
   (Case T-432/05)
   (2006/C 36/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): EMC Development AB (Lulea, Sweden) [represented by: M. Elvinger, lawyer]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision dated 28th September 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint pursuant to Article 3(2) of Council regulation 17/62;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a corporate body inter alia responsible for the continued testing and further research and development regarding an alternative cement product known as energetically modified cement. The applicant introduced a complaint before the Commission under Regulation 17/62, accusing the European producers of Portland cement (the type of cement which is predominant in the European market) of a series of behaviours constituting serious violations of Article 81 EC. More specifically, the complaint concerned the EN 197-1 standard, adopted in the context of directive 89/106 (1). According to the applicant, this standard was purposefully designed to favour existing major players in the market to the exclusion of other cement producers or market challenging products and technologies. This was allegedly achieved through close cooperation between the technical sub-committee of the European Committee for standardisation and CEMBUREAU, the duly appointed trade association of European cement producers, the vast majority of whose members are well established Portland cement producers.
   The applicant now challenges the decision rejecting its complaint. It alleges that the offending standard amounts to a horizontal cooperation agreement in violation of Article 81 EC. In the alternative, the applicant contends that the standard breaches the aims of Articles 28 and 29 EC and cannot, in any event, be justified at a Member State level under Article 30 EC.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/106 of 21 December 1998 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to Construction products, OJ L 40 11.12.1989, p.12


title: Case C-269/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Société Accor Services France v Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Société Accor Services France v Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard
   (Case C-269/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/38
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Accor Services France

      Defendants: Le Chèque Déjeuner CCR, Etablissement Public de Santé de Ville-Evrard

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Article 53 of the Code des marchés publics (Public Procurement Code) compatible with those of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contract (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case F-73/09: Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Sukup v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/84

         Action brought on 10 September 2009 — Sukup v Commission
   (Case F-73/09)
   2009/C 267/153
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Sukup (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Stéphane Rodriguez and Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ‘Office for administration and payment of individual rights’ of the European Commission refusing to grant the applicant dependant child allowance or education allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action inadmissible;

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 22 January 2009 by the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's claim and, in so far as necessary, the decision adopted on 29 May 2009 by the Appointing Authority rejecting his complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/30

         (2006/C 154/68)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

      OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

      OJ C 96, 22.4.2006

      OJ C 86, 8.4.2006

      OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-404/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Air quality — Directive 2008/50/EC — Limit values for nitrogen dioxide — Obligation to apply for postponement of the deadline by submitting an air quality plan — Penalties)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-404/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Air quality - Directive 2008/50/EC - Limit values for nitrogen dioxide - Obligation to apply for postponement of the deadline by submitting an air quality plan - Penalties))
   (2015/C 026/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: ClientEarth

      Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to postpone by a maximum of five years the deadline specified by the directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide specified in Annex XI thereto, a Member State is required to make an application for postponement and to establish an air quality plan when it is objectively apparent, having regard to existing data, and notwithstanding the implementation by that Member State of appropriate pollution abatement measures, that conformity with those values cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration by the specified deadline. Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from Article 22(1);

               2.

               Where it is apparent that conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide established in Annex XI to Directive 2008/50 cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration of a Member State by 1 January 2010, the date specified in that annex, and that Member State has not applied for postponement of that deadline under Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50, the fact that an air quality plan which complies with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive has been drawn up, does not, in itself, permit the view to be taken that that Member State has nevertheless met its obligations under Article 13 of the directive;

               3.

               Where a Member State has failed to comply with the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 and has not applied for a postponement of the deadline as provided for by Article 22 of the directive, it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-378/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2009 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2009 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-378/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/91

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-440/15: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Processing of online transactions — External service provision for software applications — Multiple framework cascade contract EMA/2012/10/ICT — Request for services sent to the applicants — Insertion of new criteria — Subject matter of the action ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/35

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA
   (Case T-440/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Processing of online transactions - External service provision for software applications - Multiple framework cascade contract EMA/2012/10/ICT - Request for services sent to the applicants - Insertion of new criteria - Subject matter of the action ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 305/48)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Ampazis, M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, and subsequently M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jablonski, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P.A. Eyckmans, Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration concerning the insertion, in EMA’s request S C 002 of 22 May 2015 to provide services, of new criteria which did not feature in the technical specifications for tender EMA/20l1/l7/ICT, Annex I to framework contract EMA/2012/l0/ICT.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Onno Plug against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-608/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/31
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Swedish Match                 of Article 7(4)(a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation
Advertising Products NV/SA against the Council of the               since respect for the right to a fair hearing is required of
                       European Union                               the Community authorities and not only of the parties.
                       (Case T-599/97)                              That refusal also constitutes an infringement of the
                                                                    requirement of transparency, which is laid down by
                         (98/C 55/61)                               implication in Articles 7(4)(a) and 8(2)(b). The
                                                                    Commission also infringed the applicant's right to a fair
                (Language of the case: English)                     hearing, as laid down in Article 7(4)(b) of the basic anti-
                                                                    dumping Regulation, by its omission of vital information
An action against the Council of the European Union was             relevant to the final amount of the anti-dumping duty
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          imposed on a Japanese competitor.
Communities on 19 December 1997 by Swedish Match
Advertising Products NV/SA, represented by Francisco                The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 2 of the
Miguel Rodero López and Dorio Mutti, with an address                basic anti-dumping Regulation since the dumping
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy                   determination made by the Community institutions is
Dupong, 14a, rue des Bains.                                         vitiated by manifest error in the assessment of facts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 190 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty. The Council has limited itself to rejecting
Ð declare that Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC)                 the applicant's arguments merely on the ground that the
     No 2025/97 is partially void within the meaning of             investigation has disclosed something other than that
     the second paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty,          alleged by the applicant. All that the applicant learns from
     since the aim of this action is not to have the current        the statement of the reasons for the contested Regulation
     anti-dumping duties declared void but to have them             is that its claims concerning the dumping determination
     replaced by more stringent measures fixing higher              have been rejected; it cannot ascertain the reasons which,
     anti-dumping duties on imports of advertising matches          in consequence of the rejection of the applicant's
     originating in Japan,                                          arguments, led the Council to impose upon a Japanese
                                                                    competitor a wholly ineffective anti-dumping duty based
Ð maintain the effects of the current anti-dumping                  on its incorrectly calculated dumping margin.
     duties, in accordance with the second paragraph of
     Article 174 of the EC Treaty, until the competent              (1) OJ L 284, 16.10.1997, p. 57.
     institutions adopt the new measures sought by this             (2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
     action, and
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Onno Plug
On 15 October 1997 the Council adopted Regulation                      against the Commission of the European Communities
(EC) No 2025/97 (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping
                                                                                (Case T-608/97)
duties on imports into the Community of advertising
matches originating in Japan and ordered to collect                                          (98/C 55/62)
definitively the provisional duty imposed. The rate of duty
applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,
before duty, is to be 43,2 %, with the exception of imports                         (Language of the case: French)
manufactured and exported by some specified companies.
The rates of duty for these companies ranges from 9,9 to            An action against the Commission of the European
27,8 %.                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
The applicant submits that the current anti-dumping                 1997 by Onno Plug, residing at Thôneux (Switzerland),
duties are not high enough in order to prevent the                  represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
material injury that the Community industry, and in                 the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
particular the applicant itself, is still suffering. The            Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson saÁrl, 30 rue de
applicant is therefore asking that the current anti-dumping         Cessange.
duties be replaced by more stringent (i.e. higher) duties by
the competent institutions.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 7(4)(a) and
8(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (2)                  Ð annul the decision contained in the letter from the
(hereinafter the basic anti-dumping Regulation') on the                 appointing authority of 14 January 1997 and, in so far
ground that the Commission refused to provide the                        as necessary, the express decision rejecting the
FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Fabricants d'Allumettes (FEFA)              applicant's complaint, adopted on 12 September 1997
with information. That refusal constitutes an infringement               and notified on 22 September 1997,
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/32               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs.                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                         Union of 3 November 1997 in so far as the Council
The applicant, formerly a temporary servant of the                       thereby refuses to release documents from the Legal
European Commission, has already brought two cases                       Services, including in particular:
before the Court of First Instance (1). The essential facts in
the present case are the same as those in Case T-47/97.                  Ð DOK.R/2026/77 (ENV.118) (AGRI 563),
The present case is directed against the decision of the                 Ð DOK.R/1867/77 (JUR.95) (ENV.106), and
appointing authority, contained in the letter which the
latter sent to the applicant on 14 January 1997, notified
on 22 January 1997. In that letter, the appointing                       Ð DOK.R/2048 dk/77 (ENV.199) (AGRI 568).
authority refused to accede to the applicant's request to
comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (2) and thus                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
withdraw the draft decision, as provided for in Article 19
of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
Communities against the Risk of Accident and of                     The applicants in the present case have brought
Occupational Disease, which it drew up on 27 November               proceedings against the Danish Prime Minister concerning
1996 on the basis of the medical opinions of new experts.           the question whether he was entitled to ratify the Treaty
In the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of          on European Union, on the ground that accession to that
the decision contained in the letter of 14 January 1997             Treaty was contrary to Article 20 of the Danish Grundlov
which takes a definitive position both as to the validity of        (Basic Law), which provides that powers vested in the
the draft decision of 27 November 1996 and on the sole              authorities of the Kingdom may, to a specified extent, be
means of challenging that action (by Committee). The                transferred by legislation to international authorities. The
applicant pleads breach of res judicata as well as failure to       case is at present pending before the Danish Hùjesteret
comply with the judgment in Case T-165/89, misuse of                (Supreme Court).
powers, infringement of Articles 18 and 19 of the
Insurance Rules, breach of the principle of sound
management as enshrined, for example, in Article 15 of              In the proceedings before the Hùjesteret, it has, according
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in the alternative,        to the applicants, become essential to gain access to
infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and             certain documents of the Council of the European Union
Article 12 of the Insurance Rules.                                  concerning legal measures which indicate the extent of the
                                                                    competence transferred to the European Union by the
                                                                    Danish legislation governing accession, including in
(1) Case T-165/89 (OJ C 23, 31.1.1990, p. 9); Case T-47/97 (OJ
    C 142, 10.5.1997, p. 22).                                       particular the question of the application of Article 235 of
(2) [1992] ECR II-367.                                              the Treaty prior to the Maastricht Treaty. During the
                                                                    proceedings before the Hùjesteret, the applicants requested
                                                                    that the Danish Government be ordered to produce a long
                                                                    list of documents, relating in particular to the views
                                                                    expressed by the other Member States and the Council's
                                                                    Legal Service regarding the legal basis for Council
                                                                    Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Hanne Norup                   of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1), and the
Carlsen and Others against the Council of the European              applicants' pleas were upheld in part by order of the
                              Union                                 Hùjesteret of 3 November 1997. The Hùjesteret did not in
                       (Case T-610/97)                              this connection address the issue of the release of
                                                                    documents held by the Council, an issue of which the
                          (98/C 55/63)                              applicants had notified the Council prior to the order.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                    In the contested decision, the Council acceded to the
                                                                    request for the release of documents, with the exception of
An action against the Council of the European Union was             those setting out the views of the Legal Services of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Council and the Commission, to which the applicants also
Communities on 23 December 1997 by Hanne Norup                      sought access. The Council stated in this connection that
Carlsen, Ingeborg Fangel, Nicolas Fischer, Jùrgen Erik              those views, in accordance with consistent practice, would
Hansen, Marianne Henriksen, Ole Donbñk Jensen,                      not be released, on the ground that publication of the
Yvonne Petersen, Iver Reedtz-Thott, Lars Ringholm and               opinions of the Legal Services on issues dealt with by the
Arne Würgler, represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen, of               Council could adversely affect the public interest in the
the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in                  maintenance of legal certainty and the stability of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-                 Community law, as well as the public interest in ensuring
Rue.                                                                that the Council has access to independent legal advice.