title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 21 March 1997 in Case C-110/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of the European Union, supported by Commission of the European Communities and Italian Republic (Application for interim measures - System of association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Serious and irreparable loss)

text:
 No C 252/14           I EN [               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
 Lisboa ( Local Civil Court, Lisbon) for a preliminary ruling           1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 in the proceedings pending before that court between
 Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio
                                                                       2.    The costs are reserved.
 Martins Pechim, Maria de Luz Lima Barros Raposo
 Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) on
 the interpretation of Articles 59, 90 and 92 of the EC
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                  Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the Region
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,               Wallone against the Commission of the European
 G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                                              Communities
 Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           ( Case C-95/97)
 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 30 June
 1997, in which it has held:                                                                      ( 97/C 252/27)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
 Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by the
                                                                       Region Wallone, represented by Jean-Marie de Backer,
 (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4. 1997 .                                       Olivier Ralet and Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                       decision of 18 December 1996 entitled ' Steel ECSC —
                                                                       Forges de Clabecq'.
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                         of 21 March 1997                              By order of 21 March 1997 the Court referred the case to
                                                                       the Court of First Instance .
in Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
Council of the European Union, supported by
Commission of the European Communities and Italian
                              Republic
 (Application for interim measures — System of association
 of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
           measure — Serious and irreparable loss)                    Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber) by judgment
                            97/C 252/26 )
                                                                      of that court of 9 April 1997 in the case of Fazenda
                                                                      Publica against Antram — Associaçao Nacional de
                                                                             Transportes Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                ( Case C-205/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/28 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    European Communities by judgment of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                      ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 April 1997, which
In Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 1997, for a
Marc Fierstra ) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:             preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica against
Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ),                      Antram — Associaçao Nacional de Transportes Públicos
supported by Commission of the European Communities                   Rodoviários de Mercadorias on the following questions :
( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) and Italian Republic ( Agent:
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Francesca Quadri,
Avvocato dello Stato) — application for suspension of                  1 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC (') preclude
                                                                            a national court from ordering suspension of
operation, as regards imports of rice originating in the
Dutch Antilles and Aruba, of Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                            implementation of a decision taken by that customs
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard                         authority, against which an appeal has been lodged,
                                                                            directly, that is without the need to submit such an
measures in respect of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            application to the customs authority ?
countries and territories ( OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p. 1 ),
or other interim measures — the President of the Court
has made an order on 21 March 1997, the operative part                2 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC preclude a
of which is as follows :                                                    national court from suspending a decision taken by the


title: Case C-389/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2009 — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social
   (Case C-389/09)
   2010/C 113/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo Número 3 de Almería

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Águeda María Sáenz Morales

      Defendant: Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social
   By Order of 20 January 2010 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the reference for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (sitting as a full Court) of 5 October 2004 in Case C-475/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC — Excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Application to ouzo of a rate lower than that applied to other alcoholic beverages — Compliance of that rate with a directive which was not challenged within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (sitting as a full Court)
   of 5 October 2004
   in Case C-475/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC - Excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Application to ouzo of a rate lower than that applied to other alcoholic beverages - Compliance of that rate with a directive which was not challenged within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC)
   (2004/C 300/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-475/01: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 December 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Kondou Durande), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and P. Milonopoulos) — the Court (sitting as a full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case T-18/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/25

         Action brought on 13 January 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-18/17)
   (2017/C 070/35)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1867 of 20 October 2016 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 27(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. By adopting the contested Regulation the Commission is alleged to have interfered in the Czech national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol, despite the fact that the Czech Republic had not sent any communication to the Commission under Article 27(3) of Directive 92/83 and the Commission had repeatedly, on the other hand, communicated that it disagreed with that approach. Under Article 27(4) of Directive 92/83, it is however not permissible to interfere in a Member States national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol without a communication from that Member State.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83, since eurodenaturant 1:1:1 does not meet the purpose of that provision in so far as it does not provide sufficient guarantees in the fight against tax evasion. Eurodenaturant 1:1:1 is a very weak denaturing mixture, and alcohol completely denatured with that mixture may easily be misused for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages.


title: Case T-131/13: Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Lardini v OHIM (Representation of a flower)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/23

         Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Lardini v OHIM (Representation of a flower)
   (Case T-131/13)
   2013/C 141/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Lardini Srl (Filottrano, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 in Case R 2578/2011-1; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure in Case R 2578/2011-1

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Position mark in the form of a flower for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-150/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/26

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council
   (Case T-150/11)
   2011/C 130/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Government of Aragón (Aragón, Spain), Principado de Asturias, Junta de Castilla y León (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, E. Echeverría Álvarez, M. López Garrido, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (f), Article 3(3) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Council Decision 2010/787/EU; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The purpose of this action is to obtain the partial annulment of Council Decision of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (2010/787/EU).
   In support of their action, the applicants raise three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, based on a manifest error of assessment of the facts and consequent breach of Article 194 TFEU
               The Decision makes a manifest error in the assessment of the facts when it states that the small contribution of subsidised coal to the overall energy mix no longer justifies the maintenance of such subsidies for securing the supply of energy in the European Union. In making that error, the Decision at issue infringes one of the objectives of the energy policy established in Article 194 TFEU, which at paragraph (b) establishes the obligation to guarantee to the security of the energy supply of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on breach of the principle of proportionality
               The requirement of the closure or reduction of aid received pursuant to the Decision at issue for mines which, while not competitive in 2011, may become competitive by 2018, is not proportionate with respect to the objectives pursued by the Decision at issue. Thus, the provisions contested by this action go further than is necessary to guarantee the protection of the environment, insofar as they do not lead to the reduction of the percentage of energy that is produced from carbon. Nor are the contested provisions proportional in order to achieve the objectives of competitiveness of the carbon industry, since (i) they may give rise to the closure in 2018 of mines that are competitive at that time, but by reason of the Decision at issue had had to undertake to close because in 2011 they could not continue without the aid provided for by that decision and (ii) they do not promote the maintenance of competitive mines from an environmental and security point of view.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicants submit that certain aspects of the Decision at issue, by removing the security of supply as an objective which may be protected by the new rule, breaches the Community principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, based on the absence of reasons
               The applicants submit that the Decision does not give sufficient reasons for the adoption of the measures that depart from those established in the earlier Regulation and the regulatory context in which it exists.


title: Case F-52/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 11 November 2014  — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint — Annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-52/11) (1)

   ((Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Report of the Committee of Inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint - Annulment - Action for damages))
   (2014/C 462/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: EIB (represented by: T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, an application to annul a letter from the President of the Bank stating that, following the Panel’s decision to reject the complaint brought by the applicant alleging psychological harassment, no action was necessary, and other decisions in relation to the inquiry into the alleged psychological harassment. Secondly, an application for a declaration that the applicant was the victim of psychological harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 1 September 2010 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint alleging psychological harassment;

               2.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 3  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25/6/2011, p. 37.


title: Case C-529/08: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-529/08) (1)

   2009/C 282/59

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 1998 in Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Cover under the joint sickness insurance scheme - Divorced spouse of a former official - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)

text:
C 378/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 October 1998
                     of 22 October 1998
                                                                           in Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
       in Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Cover under the joint sickness insurance
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               scheme Ð Divorced spouse of a former official Ð Appeal
Directive 94/26/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the                            manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)
                       prescribed period)                                                     (98/C 378/12)
                         (98/C 378/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-26/98: Commission of the European                          In Case C-228/97 P: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, divorced
Communities (Agents: Hans Christian Stùvlbñk and                     spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
Michael Schotter) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley)             residing in Kehlen (Luxembourg), represented by Dieter
Ð Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel, with an address for
or by failing to notify, within the prescribed period the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker, Braun
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary            & Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-TheÂreÁse Ð Appeal against
to comply with Commission Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June              the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 79/            European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-66/95
196/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member               [1997] ECR II-637, seeking the annulment of that
States concerning electrical equipment for use in                    judgment, the other party to the proceedings being:
potentially explosive atmospheres employing certain types            Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
of protection (OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33), Ireland has              Currall, and Bertrand Wägenbaur), the Court (Fourth
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the          Chamber) composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,                Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K. M.
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H.               Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; S.                  Registrar has made an order on 8 October 1998, the
Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a            operative part of which is as follows:
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          2. The applicant is ordererd to pay the costs of the
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      proceedings.
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/26/EC of 15 June 1994 adapting to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC on
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     concerning electrical equipment for use in potentially
     explosive atmospheres employing certain types of
     protection, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that directive;
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                     Grande Instance de Lille by judgment of that court of
                                                                     7 August 1998 in the case of Philippe Anssens v. Directeur
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                  des Services Fiscaux du Nord
                                                                                (Case C-325/98)
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.                                                                        (98/C 378/13)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil


title: Case T-185/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission (Rules on languages — Implementing rules for recruitment to the European Union Civil Service — Action for annulment under Article 230 EC — Action brought by a Member State against, first, a Commission decision to publish vacancy notices for senior management posts in English, French and German and, second, a Commission vacancy notice published in those three languages for the post of Director-General of OLAF — Admissibility — Time-limit for bringing an action — Measures against which an action may be brought — Statement of reasons — Articles 12 EC, 230 EC and 290 EC — Regulation No 1 — Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-185/05) (1)

   (Rules on languages - Implementing rules for recruitment to the European Union Civil Service - Action for annulment under Article 230 EC - Action brought by a Member State against, first, a Commission decision to publish vacancy notices for senior management posts in English, French and German and, second, a Commission vacancy notice published in those three languages for the post of Director-General of OLAF - Admissibility - Time-limit for bringing an action - Measures against which an action may be brought - Statement of reasons - Articles 12 EC, 230 EC and 290 EC - Regulation No 1 - Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination)
   (2009/C 6/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Cimaglia and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, abogado del Estado); and Republic of Latvia (represented initially by: E. Balode-Buraka, and subsequently by: L. Ostrovska, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment, first, of the decision adopted by the Commission at its 1678th meeting on 10 November 2004, whereby external publications of the vacancy notices for senior management posts in the Official Journal of the European Union would be in English, French and German for a period that would in principle end on 1 January 2007 and, second, of vacancy notice COM/2005/335 for the post of Director-General (grade A*15/A*16) of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published by the Commission on 9 February 2005 (OJ 2005 C 34 A, p. 3).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopted by the Commission at its 1678th meeting on 10 November 2004, whereby external publications of the vacancy notices for senior management posts in the Official Journal of the European Union would henceforth be in English, French and German for a period ending 1 January 2007;

               2.

               Annuls vacancy notice COM/2005/335 for the post of Director-General (grade A*15/A*16) of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published by the Commission on 9 February 2005 (OJ 2005 C 34 A, p. 3);

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 12 October 1994, in the case of The Queen against the Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte: Eunice Sutton (Case C-66/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/7
Action brought on 8 March 1995 by the Hellenic Republic               3 . Aid for the production of olive oil
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case C-61/95 )                                 The Commission deducted 10% from the overall
                           ( 95/C 119/14 )                                expenditure, owing to inadequacies which it found in
                                                                          supervision of the payment of aid to producers of olive
                                                                          oil. However, those failings are attributable to objective
An action against the Commission of the European                          impossibility of which the Commission is aware and for
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                which the Greek authorities are not responsible.
European Communities on 8 March 1 995 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by Panayiotis Milonopoulos, of the
Special Legal Service for the European Communities of the             4. Aid for the production of cotton
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by Meletis Tzotzanis, Head
of the Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of                    The Commission's refusal to allow as Community
Agriculture, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 expenditure 50 % of the expenditure in the cotton sector
the Greek Embassy, 177 Val Ste . Croix.                                   must be annulled because the Decision was adopted in a
                                                                          manner which constitutes an infringement of the rights
                                                                          of defence afforded to the Member States by Regulation
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              ( EEC ) No 729/70 on the financing of the common
                                                                          agricultural policy. In fact, although at the official
                                                                          meeting with the Greek authorities the representatives
1 , annul Commission Decision E(94 ) 3308 Rev. of                         of the Commission made no mention of cotton,
     21 December 1994 on the clearance of accounts of the
                                                                          the Commission's Director-General for Agriculture
     Member States in connection with expenditure financed                suddenly announced his decision to disallow 50 % of the
     by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  aid made available for the cotton sector .
     Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee Section, for the 1991
     financial year, in respect of the sectors challenged in this
     action and the corresponding amounts;                            5 . Tobacco
2, order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         The    Commission's       Decision   to disallow   certain
     proceedings.                                                         expenditure concerning subsidies for leaf tobacco is
                                                                          dated 21 December 1994 . However, the relevant report
                                                                          on which that Decision was based was handed to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Greek Permanent Representation one day later, that is
                                                                          to say on 22 December 1994. By taking that action the
                                                                          Commission infringed the Hellenic Republic's rights of
1 . Levy in the milk sector                                               defence. Futhermore, the Decision concerning the
                                                                          calculation of expenditure in the tobacco sector must
     The Commission's disallowance as Community                           be annulled on account of the erroneous assessment by
                                                                          the Commission of the factual circumstances and
     expenditure of an amount of Dr 1 592 000 000 is
     unlawful, since it is based on incomplete and                        infringement of the limits of its discretionary power.
     contradictory reasoning and infringes the principles of
     sound administration and of the protection of legitimate
     expectations. In its prior summary report on the
     clearance of accounts for the 1991 financial year the
     Commission aroused the expectation that it would not
     impose any correction on Greece. However, in its final
     decision, against which this action is brought, it gave as
     its reason the United Kingdom's abandonment of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     actions for annulment brought by it before the Court            Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     against decisions concerning the clearance of                    12 October 1994, in the case of The Queen against the
     expenditure in the milk and milk products sector.                       Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte:
                                                                                Eunice Sutton
                                                                                ( Case C-66/95 )
2 . Levy for exceeding the national guaranteed quantity
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/15 )
     The Commission's refusal to allow Dr 372 933 493 as
     Community expenditure for failure to notify statistical          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     data in connection with direct sales, constitutes a misuse       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of its discretionary power. Moreover, the decision in           Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 October 1994, which
     question is unlawful, since it is based on statistical data      was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1995 , for a
     which the Commission did not evaluate in an objective            preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
     manner, since it took account only of the applications           Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte: Eunice
     for the grant of approval .                                      Sutton, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/8              | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 5 . 95
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security                   or Article 19 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 is
benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council                     amplified ?
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) does Community
law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the
claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so:
   (i ) from what date is interest payable ?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State,
  (ii ) what shall the rate of interest be ?                             Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of
                                                                         8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
( iii ) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which           Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
          falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national                                  Zuid-Holland
          overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made
                                                                                (Case C-72/95 )
          for the same period ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/17
H OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Raad van
                                                                         State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ( State Council,
                                                                         Administrative Appeal Section) of 8 March 1 995 , which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                   Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February              Zuid Holland ( Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive ), on the
1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co . KG v.
                                                                         following questions:
Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung, third
                 party: Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         1 . Must the expression 'canalization and flood-relief
                            ( Case C-68/95 )                                 works ' in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
                              ( 95/C 119/16 )                                27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                             public and private projects on the environment (*) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       interpreted as also covering certain types of work on a
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                           dike running alongside waterways ?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof,              Eighth     Senate     ( Higher
Administrative Court, Hesse ) of 9 February 1995 , which                 2 . Having regard in particular to the expressions 'projects'
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1 995 , for a                 and 'modifications to projects' employed in the
preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG                      Directive, does it make any difference to the answer to
v. Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung                         question 1 whether what is involved is :
( Federal Office for Agriculture and Food ), third party:
Federal Republic of Germany, on the following                                (a ) the construction of a new dike;
questions :
                                                                             ( b ) the relocation of an existing dike;
1 . Does Article 16 ( 3 ) or Article 30 of Council Regulation
       ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 H put the                       (c ) the reinforcement and/or widening of an existing
                                                                                dike;
       Commission under a duty to deal with cases of hardship
       arising because operators of category A have difficulties
       in continuing trading owing to the fact that, on the basis
                                                                             ( d) the replacement in situ of a dike whether or not the
                                                                                new dike is stronger and/or wider than the old one;
       of the reference years to be taken into account under                       or
       Article 19 (2 ) of that Regulation, they are allocated an
       exceptionally low quota and cannot switch to the                      (e ) a combination of two or more of ( a ) to ( d )?
       market for ACP and Community bananas ?
                                                                         3 . Must Article 2(1 ) and Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be
2 . Is Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 invalid               interpreted as meaning that — if a Member State lays
       in so far as it makes no provision for taking other                   down in its national implementing legislation wrong
       reference years into account in cases of hardship in the              specifications or criteria and/or thresholds within the
       transitional period ?                                                 meaning of Article 4 (2 ) of the Directive for a project
                                                                             listed in Annex II — an obligation exists by virtue of
3 . In the event that one of the above two questions is                      Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive to subject the project to an
       answered in the affirmative : on what conditions is the               environmental impact assessment if the project is likely
       national court authorized to take provisional measures                to have 'significant effects on the environment by virtue
       in proceedings for the grant of interim relief until                  inter alia of [its] nature, size or location' within the
       such time as hardship arrangements are introduced                     meaning of Article 2 ( 1 )?


title: Case C-457/08: Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/20

         Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-457/08)
   (2008/C 313/30)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the Directive.

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 11 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 14.


title: Case C-172/09: Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/5

         Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-172/09)
   2009/C 167/09
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and K. Gawlik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not bringing into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of Directive 2005/60/EC expired on 15 December 2007. On the day on which the action was brought, meanwhile, the defendant still had not brought into force all the provisions needed for the purpose of transposing the directive and in any event had not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.


title: Case T-88/09: Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/30

         Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission
   (Case T-88/09)
   2009/C 102/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Idromacchine Srl (Porto Marghera, Italy), Alessandro Capuzzo (Mirano, Italy), Roberto Capuzzo (Mogliano Veneto, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               (A)

               Order the Commission of the European Communities:

                           (1)

                           as regards material damage, to pay to Idromacchine Srl the sum of EUR 5 459 641,28 (or other such sum as the Court may determine);

                           (2)

                           as regards non-material damage:

                                       —

                                       to pay to Idromacchine Srl such sum as the Court shall deem fair and equitable – equivalent, it is suggested, to a significant percentage (for example, between 30 % and 50 %) of the sum paid in respect of material damage;

                                       —

                                       to pay to Mr Alessandro Capuzzo and to Mr Roberto Capuzzo, individually, such sum as the Court shall deem fair and equitable, equivalent, it is suggested, also to a significant percentage (for example, between 30 % and 50 %) of the sum paid in respect of material damage;

                           (3)

                           to restore the reputation of Idromacchine Srl, Mr Alessandro Capuzzo and Mr Roberto Capuzzo — by such means as the Court shall consider most appropriate (for example, by way of an ad hoc publication in the Official Journal and/or a letter addressed to the principal customers in the reference sector — by correcting the information concerning the applicants which appeared in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2005, series C 42, page 15 et seq;

               (B)

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that the publication by the Commission of the name of Idromacchine Srl — a third party vis-à-vis the formal addressee of Commission Decision C(2004) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2005, series C 42, page 15 et seq — and of detrimental information relating to that company constitutes a serious breach of numerous principles of Community law and they therefore seek compensation for the very significant material and non-material damage suffered as a result.
   In particular, by publishing the information in question without ensuring the necessary safeguards, the most important of which would have been to afford the applicants a prior opportunity to be heard, the Commission failed in its duties of diligence and infringed the principles of the safeguarding of the rights of defence and of professional confidentiality.
   In any event, given that the published decision is not addressed to Idromacchine Srl, the publication of information concerning that company must be regarded as disproportionate in terms of the objective pursued by the Commission, which was limited to publishing information relating to the application of Community competition rules.
   As regards the damage incurred, the publication of information in the manner set out above has had the effect of reducing Idromacchine Srl’s turnover to zero in the sector in which it operates and has seriously damaged the reputation of the company and the persons who represent it.


title: Case T-141/05: Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/40

         Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-141/05)
   (2005/C 143/75)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach v.d.H. (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005 by which it denied the applicant unrestricted access to the Commission's file in relation to Contract LIEN 97-2011;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested document the Commission denied the applicant unrestricted access to the European Commission's file relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 by reference to Article 4(1)(b) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and to the Data Protection Regulation (2).
   The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. The applicant is of the opinion that the reasons given by the European Commission for its refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file concerning Contract LIEN 97-2011, namely that unrestricted access to the file would impair the decision-making process, are invalid. The applicant further contends that there is public interest in the disclosure of the documents in question. The applicant also questions the applicability of Article 4(1)(b) of the Transparency Regulation.
   The applicant complains furthermore of the refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file by reference to the Data Protection Regulation.
   In addition, the applicant submits that the European Commission's action is arbitrary.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-275/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — ULTRA d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (MPAY 24)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/44

         Action brought on 22 June 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — ULTRA d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (MPAY 24)
   (Case T-275/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: Dr. H. G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ULTRA d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2010 in case R 1102/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘MPAY24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 2601656

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark cited in the invalidity proceedings: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity relied its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and, as a result, annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and declared the invalidity of the registered Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provisions of these articles are applicable to the contested Community trade mark. In particular, the First Board of Appeal: (i) erred in overturning the previous decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 April 2004 which concerns the same matter and which is based on the same grounds; and (ii) erroneously found that the contested Community trade mark is descriptive for the goods and services in question as well as devoid of any distinctive character.
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision does not comply with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in annulling the contested Community trade mark for all the goods and services registered in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38 only on the basis of questionable and not corroborated assumptions.


title: Case T-277/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Marquis Energy v Council (Dumping — Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Admissibility — Countrywide anti-dumping duty — Individual treatment — Sampling)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Marquis Energy v Council
   (Case T-277/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Admissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling))
   (2016/C 270/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marquis Energy LLC (Hennepin, Illinois, United States) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Marquis Energy LLC;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marquis Energy;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-317/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999 in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

text:
4.12.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 352/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                     such a request, designed to prevent application of Article 3(3)
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999                 of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, is still accepted after the
in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously                      goods have been released?
Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbe-
                            heer en Visserij                              5.     If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative:
                           (Case C-317/99)
                                                                          Is it in accordance with Community law, in particular
                           (1999/C 352/27)                                Article 220(2), introductory phrase and (b), of Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 2913/92 and the principle of the protection of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    legitimate expectations, if subsequent entry in the accounts is
European Communities by decision of 21 July 1999 from the                 made under Article 220(1) of that regulation, where the
College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative                 circumstances are as described in the second question?
Court for Trade and Industry), which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the               6.     If the fifth question is answered in the negative:
case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof,
and Minister van Landbonw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Minister             Must the fifth question also be answered in the negative if the
for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Fisheries) on the                  circumstances outlined in the third question obtain?
following questions:
                                                                          (1) OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47.
1.      Is Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 (1) valid, in so far as it         (2) OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77.
sets out the provisions of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EEC)               (3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
No 2777/75 (2) which provides that the additional import duty
referred to in Article 5 of the Agreement [on Agriculture, OJ
1994 L 336, p. 22] is determined on the basis of the cif import
price of the consignment in question — in such a way that
such determination can be made only if the importer so
requests and in all other cases the import price of the
consignment in question to be taken into consideration for the            Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos
additional import duty is the representative price referred to in         Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95?                              Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                          Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative:             1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Is it in accordance with Community law, and in particular with            in case T-82/96 (1) between Associação dos Refinadores
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, if, in        de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
the case where no request has been made under Article 3(1) of             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA
Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, the customs debt is calculated               and the Commission of the European Communities,
pursuant to Article 3(3) thereof, where:                                  supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI — Socied-
                                                                                ade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA
— the cif price of the consignment in question indicated on
      the declaration is higher than the trigger price;                                            (Case C-321/99 P)
— the declarant was informed by the customs authorities that
      such a request did not have to be made in that case;                                          (1999/C 352/28)
— the declarant acted in good faith in relying on that customs            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by
      information; and                                                    the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-82/96
— the declarant otherwise complied with all conditions of the             between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      applicable provisions relating to customs declarations?             (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinar-
                                                                          ias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the
3.      If the second question is answered in the affirmative:            European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial
Does that affirmative answer still apply if, in addition to the           SA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
circumstances mentioned in the second question, the declarant             Communities on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refina-
in question has taken cognisance of the ‘Verification Notices’            dores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
issued in connection with earlier declarations which he made,             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA,
as reproduced in paragraph 2.2, second indent, of this                    represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advocaat, with an address
decision?                                                                 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                          Grand Rue.
4.      If the second and third questions are answered in the
affirmative:                                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
Do the provisions of Regulation No 1484/95, in conjunction                — declare their application for appeal to be admissible;
with Article 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (3), preclude
the situation in which, where no request was initially made               — set aside in part the judgment of 17 June 1999 of the
under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 because of                  Court of First Instance to the extent described in this
reliance on the information given by the customs authorities,                 application;


title: Case T-591/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast) (Community mark — Application for Community word mark PerfectRoast — Refusal of registration — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/53

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)
   (Case T-591/14) (1)

   ((Community mark - Application for Community word mark PerfectRoast - Refusal of registration - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PerfectRoast.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the examiner’s decision to reject the application for registration of the Community trade mark PerfectRoast for ‘water heaters’, ‘immersion heaters’ and ‘egg-cookers’.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000 in Case C-62/98: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services — Maritime transport — Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 307 EC)

text:
21.10.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/7
      none of the qualifications mentioned in Article 3 of Council         regulation — the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the      teur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including       C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragne-
      measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of        malm and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. J. Mischo, Advocate
      establishment and freedom to provide services, conditional upon      General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
      his having the linguistic knowledge necessary for the exercise of    judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:
      his profession in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to denounce or adjust the agreement
                                                                                on merchant shipping with the Republic of Angola so as to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                         provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by all
                                                                                Community nationals to the cargo shares due to the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic, as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
                                                                                freedom to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                                Member States and between Member States and third countries,
                                                                                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 3 and 4(1) of that regulation;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             of 4 July 2000                                (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
in Case C-62/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services
— Maritime transport — Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now,
                after amendment, Article 307 EC)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (2000/C 302/12)                                                            of 4 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-84/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                        ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services
                     in the European Court Reports)                        — Maritime transport — Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 307 EC))
In Case C-62/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Caeiro, B. Mongin and M. Afonso) v Portuguese                                             (2000/C 302/13)
Republic (Agents: M.L. Fernandes and M.L. Duarte) — appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing to denounce or adjust
the agreements concerning merchant shipping concluded with
the Republic of Senegal, approved by Decree No 99/79 of                                      (Language of the case: Portuguese)
14 September 1979, with the Republic of Cape Verde,
approved by Decree No 119/79 of 7 November 1979, with
the Republic of Angola, approved by Decree No 71/79 of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
18 July 1979, and with the Democratic Republic of São Tomé                                    in the European Court Reports)
and Prı́ncipe, approved by Decree No 123/79 of 13 November
1979, so as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
access by all Community nationals to the cargo shares due to               In Case C-84/98: Commission of the European Communities
the Portuguese Republic, as provided for in Council Regulation             (Agents: A. Caeiro, B. Mongin and M. Afonso) v Portuguese
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the prin-                    Republic (Agents: M.L. Fernandes and M.L. Duarte) — appli-
ciple of freedom to provide services to maritime transport                 cation for a declaration that, by failing to denounce or adjust
between Member States and between Member States and third                  the agreement concerning merchant shipping concluded with
countries (OJ 1986 L 378 p. 1), the Portuguese Republic has                the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, approved by Decree
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4(1) of that         No 74/81 of 28 June 1979, which entered into force on


title: Case T-354/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/41

         Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)
   (Case T-354/17)
   (2017/C 249/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE’ — Application for registration No 15 214 257

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 1682/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law

   The Applicant submits that the Contested Decision is incorrect and constitutes an:

               —

               Infringement of the general principles of equal treatment, good administration and legal certainty;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Case T-292/12: Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/14

         Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
   (Case T-292/12)
   2012/C 273/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2012 in case R 1722/2011-4 and reject the opposition No B 1681447; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 8990591

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-319/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council
   (Case C-319/16 P)
   (2017/C 006/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission
   By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-593/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by the Slovak Republic against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/20

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by the Slovak Republic against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-593/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/24)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Slovak Republic claims that the Court should:

               (i)

               set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

               (ii)

               itself rule on the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on the substance of the application;

               (iii)

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In the event that the Court should conclude that it does not have sufficient information to make a final decision on the Commission’s objection of inadmissibility, the Slovak Republic claims, in the alternative, that the Court should:

               (i)

               set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

               (ii)

               refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on both the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and the substance of that application;

               (iii)

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Slovak Republic puts forward two grounds in support of its appeal:

               1.

               In the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court erred in law so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law, (ii) the criterion of the institution’s competence in the assessment of whether the contested act was open to challenge, and (iii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation.

               2.

               In the alternative, in the second ground of appeal the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court stated inadequate reasons in the order under appeal so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law and (ii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation, which is confirmed by the fact that it applied (iii) identical reasoning in cases involving different facts.


title: Case C-244/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV, Johann Märkl, Ludwig Neumair, Matthias Maier, Josef Hörmann, Christine Hörmann, Albert Hörmann, Maria Rimpfl, Georg Rimpfl, Eva Rimpfl, Karl Kressierer, Magdelena Kressierer, Anton Wastl, Amalie Wastl, Richard Westenthanner, Barbara Westenthanner, Angelika Graubner-Riedelsheimer, Michael Graubner, Wolfram Graubner, Sylvia Stracke, Eva Maria Thiel, Friederike Nischwitz, Georg Daller v Freistaat Bayern (Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Protection regime before the inclusion of a habitat in the list of sites of Community importance)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV, Johann Märkl, Ludwig Neumair, Matthias Maier, Josef Hörmann, Christine Hörmann, Albert Hörmann, Maria Rimpfl, Georg Rimpfl, Eva Rimpfl, Karl Kressierer, Magdelena Kressierer, Anton Wastl, Amalie Wastl, Richard Westenthanner, Barbara Westenthanner, Angelika Graubner-Riedelsheimer, Michael Graubner, Wolfram Graubner, Sylvia Stracke, Eva Maria Thiel, Friederike Nischwitz, Georg Daller v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-244/05) (1)

   (Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43/EEC - Protection regime before the inclusion of a habitat in the list of sites of Community importance)
   (2006/C 281/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV, Johann Märkl, Ludwig Neumair, Matthias Maier, Josef Hörmann, Christine Hörmann, Albert Hörmann, Maria Rimpfl, Georg Rimpfl, Eva Rimpfl, Karl Kressierer, Magdelena Kressierer, Anton Wastl, Amalie Wastl, Richard Westenthanner, Barbara Westenthanner, Angelika Graubner-Riedelsheimer, Michael Graubner, Wolfram Graubner, Sylvia Stracke, Eva Maria Thiel, Friederike Nischwitz, Georg Daller

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) and of Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty — Protection measures required for sites which could be designated sites of Community importance, which appear on the national list sent to the Commission but have not yet been included on the list of sites adopted by the Commission — Possibility allowed by national legislation of temporarily prohibiting alteration of the state of such sites — Route of a motorway
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court rules that:

               1.

               The appropriate protection regime applicable to sites which appear on a national list transmitted to the Commission, under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, requires Member States not to authorise interventions which incur the risk of seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of those sites.

               2.

               Member States must, in accordance with the provisions of national law, take all the measures necessary to avoid interventions which incur the risk of seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of the sites which appear on the national list transmitted to the Commission. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-145/94: Unimétal - Société française des aciers longs SA v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
C 160/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.6.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 11 March 1999                                                             of 11 March 1999
in Case T-141/94: Thyssen Stahl AG v. Commission of the                       in Case T-145/94: Unimétal — Société française des aciers
                     European Communities (1)                                 longs SA v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                               (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                   undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                         concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
             Systems for the exchange of information)                                     Systems for the exchange of information)
                            (1999/C 160/27)                                                             (1999/C 160/28)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: French)
In case T-141/94: Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg                   In case T-145/94: Unimétal - Société française des aciers longs
(Germany), represented, during the written procedure, by                      SA, having its registered office in Rombas (France), represented
Joachim Sedemund and Frank Montag, and, during the oral                       by Antoine Winckler and Caroline Levi, of the Paris and
procedure, by Frank Montag and Barbara Balke, Rechtsanwälte,                  Brussels Bars respectively, with an address for service in
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15, Côte
Chambers of Aloyse May, 32, Grand-Rue, v. Commission of                       d’Eich, v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
the European Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall,                   initially Julian Currall and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and
Norbert Lorenz, and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and sub-                        subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charri-
sequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier,                 er) — application, principally, for the annulment of Com-
assisted by Hans-Joachim Freund) — application, principally,                  mission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                       to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article                 concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                     European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                       — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                          Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                          A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,               1999, in which it:
has given a judgement on 11 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                              1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                          16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article                 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as
     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as              it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement to share
     it finds that the applicant participated in a price-fixing agreement          the Italian market which lasted three months,
     on the German market which lasted three months,
                                                                              2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4              of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 8 300 000,
     of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 4 400 000,
                                                                              3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
                                                                              4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the               defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.                                                      (1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.


21.12.2002             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 323/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-366/01 ( 1)
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to                              (2002/C 323/44)
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period        By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
expired on 31 July 2001 without the United Kingdom having            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive        register of Case C-366/01: Commission of the European
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                    Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-404/95 ( 1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-370/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 323/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/45)
By order of 18 October 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-404/95: Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-370/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 30.03.1996.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-919/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/23

         Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament
   (Case T-919/16)
   (2017/C 070/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant,

               —

               rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union,

               —

               compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision,

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament.