title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-284/97)

text:
C 318/6                     EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18 . 10 . 97
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of                        In the third indent of Article 3 (2 ) of the Council Directive
   the European Communities against the French Republic                     on freedom of access to information on the environment,
                             ( Case C-284/97 )                              does the ground of exclusion for matters which are
                                                                            'the subject of preliminary investigation proceedings'
                                ( 97/C 318/08 )                             encompass proceedings of an administrative authority that
                                                                            end with the issue of an administrative act which, if an
An action against the French Republic was brought before                    action is brought, can become the subject of judicial
the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the Commission                     proceedings ? (')
of the European Communities, represented by Fernando
Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-                 (') Council Directive 90/313/EEC ( OJ L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 56 ).
Castera, a national civil servant on secondment to that
service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :
                                                                            Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply                                                Case C-297/97 )
      with Council Directive 93/40/EEC (') of 14 June 1993                                             ( 97/C 318/ 10 )
      amending Directives 81 /851 /EEC ( 2 ) and 81 /852/
      EEC (') on the approximation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
      products, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      obligations under the EC Treaty and that Directive
                                                                            13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
      ( except as regards Article 1 ( 7)),
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
— oder the French Republic to pay the costs .                               Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
Identical to those submitted in Case C-282/97 ( 4 ); the
period prescribed in Article 3 of Directive 93/40/EEC                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
expired on 31 December 1994 .
                                                                             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or, in any event,
(')  OJ  L 214, 24 . 8 .   1993 , p . 31 .                                        notify the laws, regulations and administrative
(z ) OJ  L 317, 6 . 11 .   1981 , p . 1 .                                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
(■') OJ  L 317, 6 . 11 .   1981 , p . 16 .
(4 ) OJ   C 295 , 27 . 9 . 1997, p . 20 .
                                                                                93/65/EEC of 19 July 1993 on the definition and
                                                                                use of compatible technical specifications for the
                                                                                procurement of air-traffic-management equipment and
                                                                                systems ('), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations pursuant to that Directive and the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
                                                                            2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
 of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case of Ulrich Gloger
                                                                                proceedings.
 against Bergamt Kamen, joined party: Vertreter des öffent
 lichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das
                       Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                              ( Case C-296/97 )
                                 ( 97/C 318/09 )                             Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a
                                                                             Directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      each Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
 European Communities by order of the Twenty-first                           obligation on Member States to comply with the
 Chamber of the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land                          transposition periods which Directives lay down . That
 Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court for the                   period expired on 20 July 1994 without the Italian
 Land North Rhine-Westphalia ) of 28 July 1997, received                     Republic having adopted the provisions necessary to
 at the Court Registry on 12 August 1997, for a peliminary                   comply with the Directive referred to in the form of order
 ruling in the case of Ulrich Gloger against Bergamt                         sought by the Commission.
 (Mining Office ) Kamen, joined party: Vertreter des öffent
 lichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das                       (') OJ L 187, 29 . 7 . 1993 , p . 52 .
 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Representative of the Public
 Interest before the Higher Administrative Court for the
 Land North Rhine-Westphalia ) on the following question :


title: Case C-312/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-312/17)
   (2017/C 309/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

      Defendants: Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Question referred

   Is Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the receipt of interim assistance — granted, on the basis of the basic remuneration laid down in the collective agreement, with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence for workers who have lost their jobs until they are able to secure financial protection through entitlement to a pension under the statutory pension scheme — ends once the worker concerned is entitled to receive an early retirement pension, and the application of which is based on the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on grounds of disability?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2003 in Case T-302/01: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Cancellation of an allowance for dependent child who has reached majority — Legitimate expectations)

text:
C 7/32                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                                             of 21 October 2003
                                                                           in Case T-302/01: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regu-
                                                                           lations — Cancellation of an allowance for dependent child
                                                                               who has reached majority — Legitimate expectations)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 7/58)
                        of 23 October 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case T-279/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
(Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for                  In Case T-302/01: Gerhard Birkhoff, former official of the
                           compensation)                                   Commission of the European Communities, now retired,
                                                                           residing in Weitnau (Germany), represented by V. Salvatore,
                                                                           lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                           (2004/C 7/57)                                   (Agents: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro) — first, an application for
                                                                           annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                           26 September 2001 rejecting the complaint brought by the
                    (Language of the case: French)                         applicant against the decision of the Commission of 4 July
                                                                           2001 by which it cancelled payment to the applicant of the
                                                                           dependent child allowance in respect of his daughter and of
                                                                           the decision of 4 July 2001 and, secondly, a claim for
                                                                           compensation for material and non-material damage — the
In Case T-279/01: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-                 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
mission of the European Communities, residing in Senninger-                N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti,              H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                which it:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s
decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s complaints seeking           1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of 4 July 2001
damages to compensate him for the non-material damage                            cancelling, with effect from 1 July 2001, payment of the
caused by the delay in the preparation of the staff reports                      dependent child allowance in respect of the applicant’s daughter
concerning him for the periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999                           who has reached majority.
and, secondly, for damages to compensate him for that non-
material damage — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given        2.    Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for
a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:                                      compensation for the damage arising from the loss of cover in
                                                                                respect of the applicant’s daughter by the EC Sickness Insurance
                                                                                Fund, nor on the part of the claim seeking compensation for the
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                      tax consequences of the contested decision.
      EUR 1 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 619,73 already
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.                                 3.    Dismisses the remainder of the claim for compensation.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                               4.    Orders the Commission to pay two-thirds of the applicant’s
                                                                                costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    relief in the present case.
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                    (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.


title: Case C-415/02: Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 19/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                     new securities issued when a company or investment
ichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in                         fund is being set up or following the completion of an
the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.                    increase in capital or during a loan issue,
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberös-
                             terreich                                         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                        (Case C-414/02)                                       17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                              capital (1);
                         (2003/C 19/27)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Administrative Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling            Pleas in law and main arguments
in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich
(Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria) on the                 The taxes referred to in the forms of order sought are at
following questions:                                                    variance with Article 11 of the Directive in so far as they are
                                                                        imposed on the delivery to the subscriber and/or the issue of
Does Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechtsdurchführungsgesetz               new securities. In those cases, the derogation provided for in
(Act to implement customs law, under which an employer or               Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive, which allows Member States
undertaking incurs liability for a customs debt at the same             to charge duties on the transfer of securities, is not applicable
time as the employee or other person contracted by the                  because such a ‘transfer’ presupposes the existence of a
undertaking incurs liability for the debt, if that person has, in       previous owner of the securities in question.
the discharge of his employer’s or the undertaking’s affairs,
acted unlawfully with regard to customs obligations), widen
the meaning of the term ‘customs debtor’ in a manner that is            (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412.
contrary to Article 202(3) of the Customs Code and therefore
incompatible with Community law?
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                      Kingdom of Belgium                                Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities against the
                        (Case C-415/02)                                                          Hellenic Republic
                         (2003/C 19/28)
                                                                                (Case C-417/02)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                               (2003/C 19/29)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
the Court should:                                                       vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal
—     Rule that:                                                        Service.
      by imposing the ‘tax on stock-exchange transactions’ on
      applications made in Belgium for new securities issued
      when a company or investment fund is being set up or              The Commission claims that the Court should:
      following the completion of an increase in capital or
      during a loan issue;                                              (a)   declare that,
      by imposing the ’tax on the delivery of securities to the
      holder’ on the substantive issue to the holder of securities            —     by enacting and retaining in force Article 3(1)(c) and
      relating to Belgian or foreign public funds, in the case of                   (2) of Presidential Decree 107/93, and


title: Case T-279/14: Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/31

         Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission
   (Case T-279/14) (1)

   (2015/C 190/35)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 6 March 1995 in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G. v. Les Gravières Rhénanes Sàrl (Case C-106/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                    amended by Royal Decree Law 3/89 of 31 March 1989
Bremen by order of that court of 7 March 1995 in the case of                 ( now Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative Decree 1 /1994
            Brigitte Kording v. Senator fur Finanzen                         of 20 June 1994 ) be considered an unemployment
                         ( Case C-100/95 )                                   benefit within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                             ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                           ( 95/C 137/26 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative :
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court ) Bremen, Second Senate, of 7 March 1995 ,              2 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March                         its present version ) be interpreted, as regards the
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brigitte Kording              particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning
v. Senator fur Finanzen on the following question :                          that periods of insurance or of employment completed
                                                                             under the legislation of any other Member State must be
Is there an infringement, in the form of ' indirect                          taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
discrimination against women', of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Directive               unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (') or other Community                         age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative
law, where, under domestic legislation ( Paragraph 38 ( 1 ),                 Decree 1 /1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
                                                                             consolidated version of the General Law on Social
No 4a , second subparagraph, in conjunction with
Paragraph 36 ( 3 ) of the Steuerberatungsgesetz ( Law on Tax                 Security, to the extent to which the right to a retirement
Consultancy ), the 15-year minimum period of employment                      pension may be obtained on the basis of such
as a case officer in the executive class of the revenue                      contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
administration, which is required for exemption from the                     State other than that of the competent institution ?
tax consultants ' examination, is proportionately extended
in the case of part-time employment involving working                   3 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not
hours of no less than one-half of the normal working hours ,                 paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for
and where, of the 119 part-time executive-class officers in                  less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
the Bremen revenue administration, 110 are women                             retirement pension in any Member State ?
( 92,4% )?
                                                                        4 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
(') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                    the unemployment allowance available for persons of
                                                                             more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
                                                                             to age requirements , they are entitled to a retirement
                                                                             pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme
                                                                              ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
                                                                             Member State being precluded from receiving such
                                                                             allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty ?
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de lo Social
No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of
 13 March 1995 in the cases of Manuel Eugenio Fernandez
Balado and Jose Paredes v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
           and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                ( Cases C-102/95 and C-103/95 )
                            ( 95 /C 137/27 )
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 6 March 1995
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social                                v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari
 ( Social Court) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of 13 March                                      Case C-106/95 )
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                               ( 95/C 137/28 )
 13 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Manuel Eugenio Fernandez Balado and Jose Paredes against
Instituto Nacional de Empleo ( National Employment                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Institute ) and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
 ( National Social Security Institute ) on the following
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Second
 questions :                                                            Civil Senate — of 6 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
 1 . Must the unemployment allowance for persons over 52                in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
      years of age applied for by the plaintiff, provided for by        v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari on the following
      Article 13 ( 2 ) of Law 31 /84 of 2 August 1984, as                questions :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/ 14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
 1 . Is an oral agreement on the place of performance                   References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
     ( Brussels Convention, Article 5 ) to be recognized even if        Circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccate di Tivoli e di
     it is not intended to fix the place at which the person            Castelnuovo — by orders of those courts of February and
     liable has to perform the obligations incumbent on him,            March 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before them
     but is intended solely to establish — informally — that            against Giuseppe Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo
     the courts for a particular place are to have jurisdiction                                         Zappone
     (a so-called 'abstract' agreement on the place of                          ( Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 )
     performance )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/30 )
2 . In the event that the Court of Justice should answer
     question 1 in the negative :                                       References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Pretura
     ( a ) Can an agreement conferring jurisdiction in                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccate di Tivoli e di
           international trade or commerce in accordance
                                                                        Castelnuovo ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli
           with the third hypothesis mentioned in the second            and Castelnuovo Divisions ) which were received at the
           sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the         Court Registry on 3 , 6 , 10 April 1995 respectively, for a
           1978 version of the Brussels Convention also be
                                                                        preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe
           concluded by one party's not contradicting a                 Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo Zappone on the
           commercial letter of confirmation containing a               following questions :
           pre-printed reference to the courts of the
           consignors ' place of business having sole                   1 . What is the legal effect of the Italian Republic 's failure to
           jurisdiction or must there have been in every case               bring into force the necessary measures to implement
           prior consensus with regard to the content of the                Council Directive 91/156/EEC ( l ), amending Directive
           letter of confirmation ?                                         75/442/EEC within the prescribed time limit ?
     ( b ) Is it sufficient in order for there to be an agreement       2 . In particular, may the existence of criminal penalties,
           conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of the                and in particular those provided for in Articles 10 and
           aforesaid provision if the invoices sent by one party            25 ( Case C-75/95 ) and Article 25 et seq. ( Case C-58/95 )
           all contain a reference to the courts of the carrier 's
                                                                            of Presidential Decree No 915 /82 for failure to observe
           place of business having sole jurisdiction and to the            the Italian rules, be considered to conflict with
           conditions of the bill of lading used by the carrier             Community legislation where it seeks to ensure uniform
           which also stipulate the courts of the same place as             treatment, from the point of view of penalties as well, for
           having jurisdiction, and the other party invariably              operators in the Single Market.
           paid the invoices without objecting, or is prior
           consensus also required in this respect ?                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio, Athens , by judgment of that court of 29 March              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Arbitral
          1990 in the case of Astir AE v. Greek State
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales by decision of that court of 5 April
                          ( Case C-109/95 )                             1995 in the case of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des
                            ( 95/C 137/29 )                                                      Employés Privés
                                                                                ( Case C-120/95 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 137/31 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 29 March 1990, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Arbitral
on 3 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Astir
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales ( Arbitral Council of Social
AE v. Greek State pending before it on the following
                                                                        Insurance ) of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
question :
                                                                        Registry on 7 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
On a proper construction of Article 10 ( 4 ) of Commission              of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employes Prives
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2730/79 , in conjunction with the                 ( Health Insurance Fund for Employees in the Private Sector )
provisions of Articles 20 and 21 thereof, is an exporter of an          on the following question :
agricultural product, in this case wheat flour, entitled to a
refund when the exported product after leaving the                      Is Article 60 of the Luxembourg Social Insurance Code,
geographical territory of the Community has perished in                 under which a social security institution of Member State A
transit as a result of force majeure and where for that                refuses to refund to an insured person, who is a national of
product the same amount of refund was fixed for all                    Member State A, the cost of spectacles with corrective
non-member countries except the Soviet Union for which as               lenses, prescribed by a doctor established in Member State A
regards the product mentioned above no amount of refund                 but purchased from an optician established in Member State
was fixed ?                                                             B, on the ground that all medical treatment outside Member
                                                                        State A must be authorized in advance by the above social
                                                                        security institution, compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of


title: Case C-235/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 29 June 2009 — DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 29 June 2009 — DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA
   (Case C-235/09)
   2009/C 205/46
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL Express France SAS

      Defendant: Chronopost SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (1) on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court has effect as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the Community?

               2.

               If not, is that court entitled to apply specifically that prohibition to the territories of other States in which the acts of infringement are committed or threatened?

               3.

               In either case, are the coercive measures which the court, by application of its national law, has attached to the prohibition issued by it applicable within the territories of the Member States in which that prohibition would have effect?

               4.

               In the contrary case, may that court order such a coercive measure, similar to or different from that which it adopts pursuant to its national law, by application of the national laws of the States in which that prohibition would have effect?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-460/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — AETMD v Council

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/43

         Action brought on 18 June 2014 — AETMD v Council
   (Case T-460/14)
   2014/C 303/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

               —

               order the Council to correct Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 in view of the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2004;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the institutions committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 2(3) and (4) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) by failing to properly assess whether River Kwai International Food Industry’s domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade and whether the domestic sales should therefore serve as a basis to calculate River Kwai International Food Industry’s normal value.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 2(10) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to make a fair comparison between River Kwai International Food Industry’s export price and normal value.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 11(3) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to properly assess the alleged change in River Kwai International Food Industry’s dumping margin and by failing to properly assess the lasting nature of any such alleged change.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 19(2) and Article 20(2) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009 by failing to provide the applicant with a meaningful summary of the evidence on which they intended to amend River Kwai International Food Industry’s dumping margin and by failing to provide the applicant with the considerations on the basis of which they intended to amend River Kwai International Food Industry’s anti-dumping duty.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case T-524/11: Action brought on 30 September 2011 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/25

         Action brought on 30 September 2011 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)
   (Case T-524/11)
   2011/C 355/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (Xuanhua, China)

      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 19 July 2011 in case R 1870/2010-1;

               —

               Reject the Community trade mark application No 5029731; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings to bear the costs of the applicant in connection with the present proceedings, the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the proceedings before the Opposition division.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LOVOL’, for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 5029731

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2361087, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-28 and 33-42; Community trade mark application No 4804522, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35-39 and 41; UK trade mark registration No 747361, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 747362, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 1051579, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7; UK trade mark registration No 1408143, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take all relevant factors into account when comparing the marks, thereby mistakenly found that there was no similarity in the marks. Infringement of a rule of law related to the application of the Regulation, and in particular, the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-361/04 P, Ruiz-Picasso e.a./OHMI of 12 January 2006, ECR I-643 and case C-252/07, Intel Corporation, ECR I-8823, by applying them in a rigidly formalistic manner, and consequently, by not examining the merits of the opposition under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Camping Qualité France against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-182/95)

text:
No C 315/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 11 . 95
Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Camping Qualité                    The applicants claim that the Court should :
France against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                 — annul the applicants ' pension statements for December
                                                                            1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( ECSC,
                         Case T-182/95 )                                    EC, Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 ,
                          ( 95 /C 315/42 )                                  inasmuch as that regulation lays down a weighting for
                                                                            Germany at the rate fixed for its capital , Berlin , only
                (Language of the case: French)                              with effect from 1 July 1994 and not from 3 October
                                                                            1990 , and , in so far as may be necessary, annul the
An action against the Commission of the European                            decision of the Commission of 26 July 1995 rejecting the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           applicants ' complaint,
Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1995
by Camping Qualité France, an association whose registered             — reinstate the applicants' pension rights in full , weighted
office is in Paris , represented by Jean-Michel Roche and                   at the rate fixed for Berlin since 3 October 1990 ,
Jean-Claude Cohen, of the Paris Bar, with an address for               — order the defendant to pay default interest on the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels,                   pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
 13 Rue Aldringen .                                                         30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period,
                                                                            at the annual rate of 10% .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul , together with all its legal consequences, the
    Commission's decision of 27 July 1995 , received on                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
    4 August 1995 , demanding from the applicant                       already invoked in          Cases T-l 71 /95 , T- 172/95       and
    reimbursement of ECU 51 405,74 out of the sum of                   T - 173 /95 .
    ECU 90 000 granted by way of Community subsidy for
    its project for the development of a European chain of
    quality outdoor holiday centres .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Areacova, SA,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Armadora José Pereira, SA, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán,
                                                                       SA, Centropesca, SA, Chymar, SA, Eloymar, SA, Exfaumar,
The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision is not        SA, Farpespan , SL, Freiremar, SA, Hermandos Gandón , SA,
accompanied by a sufficient statement of reasons, since it             Heroya, SA, Hiopesca, SA, José Pereira e Hijos , SA, Juana
makes no reference to any legislation or individual provision          Oya Pérez, Manuel Nores González, Moradiña, SA, Navales
empowering the Commission to adopt a decision of that                  Cerdeiras, SL, Nugago Pesca, SA, Pesquera Austral , SA,
nature .
                                                                       Pescaberbés, SA, Pesquerías Bígaro Narval , SA, Pesquera
As regards the decision 's content, the applicant considers it         Cíes , SA, Pesca Herculina, SA, Pesquera Inter, SA,
to be unfounded , in that, first, it is based on facts which are       Pesquerías Marinenses, SA, Pesquerías Tara, SA, Pesquera
inaccurate and, secondly , it questions the quality of the             Vaqueiro, SA, Sotelo Dios, SA, Asociación Nacional de
project, whereas at this stage the Commission may only                 Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza
verify matters concerning the financial use of the amounts             ( ANAMER ), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques
granted .
                                                                       Congeladores de Pesquerías Varias ( ANAVAR ) and
                                                                       Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas ( ASPE )
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-l 94/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/44 )
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Franz Becker,
Giuseppe Lisitano, Richard Mirsberger, Gerda                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
Müller-Maersch, Heinz L. Nörenberg, Wolfram Pütz and
Gerhard Tscheepe against the Commission of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          Communities                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 1 6 October 1 995 by Areacova , SA, ( whose
                       ( Case T-l 91 /95 )                             registered office is in Vigo , Spain ), Armadora Jose Pereira ,
                         ( 95/C 315/43 )                               SA , ( whose registered office is in Vigo , Spain ), Armadores
                                                                       Pesqueros de Aldan, SA , ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
               (Language of the case: French)                          Spain ), Centropesca , SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
                                                                       Spain ), Chymar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
An action against the Commission of the European                       Spain ), Eloymar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Estribela ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Spain ), Exfaumar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Bueu ,
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995                Spain ), Farpespan , SL , ( whose registered office is in Moana ,
by Franz Becker, Giuseppe Lisitano, Richard Mirsberger,                Spain ), Freiremar, SA, ( whose registered office is in Vigo,
Gerda Müller-Maersch , Heinz L. Nörenberg, Wolfram Pütz                Spain ), Hermandos Gandón , SA , ( whose registered office is
and Gerhard Tscheepe , all residing in Germany, represented            in Cangas, Spain ), Heroya , SA , ( whose registered office is in
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels               Vigo, Spain ), Hiopesca , SA , ( whose registered office is in
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices          Vigo , Spain ), Jose Pereira e Hijos , SA , ( whose registered
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener .                            office is in Vigo, Spain ), Juana Oya Perez ( whose registered


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2004 in Case T-310/03 R: Kreuzer Medien GmbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility of an application brought by an intervener)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/40

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 September 2004
   in Case T-310/03 R: Kreuzer Medien GmbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility of an application brought by an intervener)
   (2004/C 300/80)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-310/03 R: Kreuzer Medien GmbH, established in Leipzig (Germany), represented by M. Lenz, lawyer, supported by Falstaff Verlags GmbH, established in Klosterneuburg (Austria), represented by W.-G. Schärf, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and the Council of the European Union (Agent: E. Karlsson), supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, with an address for service in Luxembourg), the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and the Republic of Finland (Agents: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and T. Pynnä, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application brought by Falstaff Verlags GmbH under Article 243 EC for suspension of the operation of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 21 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-100/10: Action brought on 8 October 2010 — AM v Parliament

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/37

         Action brought on 8 October 2010 — AM v Parliament
   (Case F-100/10)
   2011/C 55/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AM (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: L. Lévi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the decision refusing to consider the cardio-vascular attack suffered by the applicant as an accident within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 November 2009 refusing to consider the cardio-vascular attack suffered by the applicant as an accident within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the rules concerning cover and, as far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaint;

               —

               As a consequence, order a fresh consideration of the applicant's application, brought under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, by a new medical committee;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages, fixed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 50 000 for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decisions;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages, fixed, provisionally, at EUR 25 000 for the material damage suffered as a result of the contested decisions;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay interest for late payment on the capital due under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations at a rate of 12 % for a period which commenced not later than 15 March 2007 and which will terminate when the entire capital is paid;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Van Megen Sports Group BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 137/23
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Syndicat National                  Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Van Megen Sports
de l'lndustrie Cimentiere ( SFIC ) v. Commission of the                  Group BV against the Commission of the European
                       European Communities                                                          Communities
                           ( Case T-36/95 )                                                       ( Case T-49/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/57 )                                                        ( 95/C 137/58 )
                    (Language of the case: French                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 February
1995 by the Syndicat National de l'lndustrie Cimentiere                  1995 by Van Megen Sports Group BV, whose registered
( SFIC ), whose registered office is in Paris, represented by            office is in Eindhoven (Netherlands ), represented by A. W.
Edouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar,              Willems, Boskamp & Willems Chambers, Eindhoven, with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                an address for service in Luxembourg at the Registry of the
of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                                       Court of First Instance .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul in whole or in part, Articles 1 , 2 , 3 ( 2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), declare null and void the Commission's Decision of
      5 and 9 of the Commission 's Decision of 30 November
                                                                         21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      1994 in so far as those articles concern the SFIC,                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/32.948 — IV/34.590 :
                                                                         Tretorn and others ) (*).
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its application the applicant puts forward the             Breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of a rule
following pleas in law:                                                  of law which must be complied with when applying the
                                                                         Treaty.
  I. Breaches of formal and procedural requirements :
                                                                         In its abovementioned decision the Commission imposed a
       1 . During the administrative procedure prior to the              fine on the applicant on the ground that it infringed
           adoption of the Decision: the applicant maintains in          Article 85 ( 1 ) by participating in the implementation in the
           particular that the statement of objections failed to         Netherlands of the reporting and investigation of parallel
           comply with the obligation to specify individually            imports in order to enforce Tretorn Sports Ltd's policy of
           the objections raised and the evidence tendered               preventing parallel imports and exports .
           against it and also that it was unable to obtain full
           access to the file .                                          The applicant considers that the conclusion reached by the
                                                                         Commission in its decision cannot be supported by the
       2 . As regards the adoption of the Decision: the                  evidence available to it, that that conclusion is insufficiently
           applicant considers that the Decision contains                reasoned by the Commission and that insufficient
           several defects relating to the circumstances of its          arguments are given justifying ( the level of the ) actual
           adoption, to its form and to the procedure                    penalty ( in proportion to that of the other parties
           followed :                                                    concerned ).
            ( a ) breach of the principle of collegiality;                (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 45 .
            ( b ) use of excluded documents :
            ( c ) condemnation of the applicant on the basis of
                  objections not expressly mentioned in the
                  statement of objections;                                Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Castle Cement Ltd
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
            ( d ) use of new evidence ;
                                                                                ( Case T-56/95 )
            ( e ) defective statement of reasons .                                                   ( 95/C 137/59 )
 II . Inadequate evidence : as regards both the charge of an
       agreement to respect home markets and the other                                    (Language of the case: English)
       infringements charged, the Commission has not proved
       to the requisite legal standard that the applicant, as             An action against the Commission of the European
       such, was involved , or that the conduct at the factual            Communities was brought before the Court of First
       level that was attributable to it exceed the lawful bounds         Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
       of its functions as a trade association and/or approved            1995 by Castle Cement Ltd represented by Mr Nicholas
       statistical body .                                                 Forwood , Mr John Cook, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
                                                                          Boite Postale 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-451/07: Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/32

         Action brought on 10 December 2007 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)
   (Case T-451/07)
   (2008/C 37/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: WellBiz Verein, WellBiz Association (Eschen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Schnetzer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelhein, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 2 October 2007 in Case R 1575/2006-1;

               —

               To reject Opposition No B 809 394 of the opponent of 9 March 2005;

               —

               To order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs of the present case and also those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WELLBIZ’ in respect of services in Classes 35 and 41 (application No 3 844 479).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘WILD.BIZ’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 225 175), the opposition being based on some of the services in Class 41.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to all the contested services in Class 41.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the marks in question differ phonetically, figuratively and conceptually, and the mark cited in opposition does not enjoy a particularly high degree of recognition and does not therefore possess a high level of distinctiveness.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-162/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  17 November 2005  — Grijseels and Lopez Garcia v European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2005 — Grijseels and Lopez Garcia v European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case T-162/05) (1)

   (2006/C 36/74)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case T-57/99: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 — Nardone v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Action for damages — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos and other substances)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 — Nardone v Commission
   (Case T-57/99) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Occupational disease - Exposure to asbestos and other substances)
   (2009/C 32/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Albert Nardone (Piétrain, Belgium) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, then by L. Levi)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, agent, and J. L. Fagnart, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the wrongful conduct of the Commission in exposing the applicant to an atmosphere filled with dust and contaminated by asbestos.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               orders the Commission to pay to Mr Albert Nardone damages of EUR 66 000;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-157/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1996 to 1998 — Export refunds — Fruit and vegetables)

text:
C 44/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the          L 67, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic, the
      European Communities of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
      T-33/98 and T-34/98 Petrotub and Republica v Council;                  of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
2.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November               L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             a judgment on 24 June 2000, in which it:
      certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
      originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic,
      Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)            1.    Dismisses the application;
      No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such
      imports originating in the Republic of Croatia in so far as it         2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      concerns Petrotub SA and Republica SA;
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs              (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
      incurred by Petrotub SA and Republica SA both in the present
      proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance which
      culminated in the judgment in Petrotub and Republica v
      Council, cited above;
4.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs both in the present proceedings and in the
      proceedings at first instance which culminated in the judgment
      in Petrotub and Republica v Council.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( 1) OJ C 135 of 15.5.2000.                                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-177/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 to 1998 financial
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    years — Export refunds — Olive oil — Sale of intervention
                                                                                alcohol)
                          of 9 January 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 44/07)
in Case C-157/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1996 to 1998 —
             Export refunds — Fruit and vegetables)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2003/C 44/06)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           In Case C-177/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
                                                                             by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by
                    in the European Court Reports)                           A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the
                                                                             Commission’s Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 exclud-
                                                                             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
                                                                             by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
In Case C-157/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
and I. K. Chalkias, also by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                      (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37) in so far as it made financial adjustments
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to certain expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice
Application for partial annulment of Commission                              (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of
Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from                          the Chamber, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the                      (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European                    General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    2003, in which it:


title: Case C-617/11 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/43

      Appeal brought on 1 December 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case C-617/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/81)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 in so far as it rejected the claims seeking compensation and reparation made by the appellant in his written submissions at first instance;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs and allow in their entirety and without any exception whatsoever the claims seeking compensation and reparation;

                  —

                  In the alternative, refer the case back in part to the General Court for a fresh decision on the claims seeking compensation and reparation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  —

                  Errors of procedure so serious as to damage irreparably the interests of the appellant;

                  —

                  total failure to state grounds, as well irrational, tautological, illogical and inconsistent reasoning, and misinterpretation and misapplication of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, of the rules on the interpretation of laws and of the conditions governing the liability of a European Union institution for payment of compensation for damage;

                  —

                  confused and arbitrary reasoning and distortion and misrepresentation of the facts;

                  —

                  distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and misinterpretation and misapplication of the rules on the admissibility of documents instituting proceedings.


title: Case C-311/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 213/22              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
capital sum owed, the defendant also owes interest accrued               Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
since the debt came into being and until full payment is made.           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-310/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/40)
Action brought on 22 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Office for
                 the safety of health products
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-308/03)                                  ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                        (2003/C 213/39)                                  an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
An action against the French Office for the safety of health             the Court should:
products (AFSSAPS) was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 22 July 2003 by the                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
R. Lyal and C. Giolitto, acting as Agents, with an address for                 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
service in Luxembourg.                                                         the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
                                                                               sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
                                                                               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         obligations under that directive;
the Court should order the defendant;
                                                                         —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 47 218,32 (Forty-
      seven thousand two hundred and eighteen euros and
      thirty-two cents) corresponding to EUR 41 000 in respect
      of the principal and EUR 6 218,32 in respect of accrued            Pleas in law and main arguments
      interest for delay up to 31 March 2003, at the rate of
      5,25 %;
                                                                         The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
2.    to pay EUR 6,74 (Six euros and seventy-four cents) per             1 January 2002.
      day in respect of accrued interest, at the same rate, from
      1 April 2003 until payment in full;
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause, since             Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of            the European Communities against the French Republic
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the                                    (Case C-311/03)
Treaty.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/41)
By refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the
Commission, the AFSSAPS has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
field of telematic applications of common interest and is liable         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
to repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                    2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/23
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with            1 January 2002.
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the        (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
1 January 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-314/03)
( 1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.                                                                  (2003/C 213/43)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
                         (Case C-312/03)
                                                                        —     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2003/C 213/42)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
                                                                              the transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings and financial transparency
                                                                              in certain undertakings (1), and in any event by not
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                   notifying the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           directive;
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                        The time-limit for implementation of the directive expired on
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                        31 July 2001.
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 29.7.2000, L 193, p. 75.
      under that directive;
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Case T-128/03: Action brought on 18 April 2003 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM)

text:
19.7.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/31
Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Pfizer Limited                         in the sense intended in Article 30. Second, the applicant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      claims he has neither been clearly informed of the question
                                                                          which has been referred to the CPMP, nor has he received a
                                                                          satisfactory explanation of the issues raised. Third, the
                         (Case T-123/03)                                  appliquant invokes the absence of any question of quality,
                                                                          safety and/or efficacy of the product. The absence of genuine
                                                                          public health reasons could be inferred from the failure to
                        (2003/C 171/53)
                                                                          include generic versions of ‘Lopid’ in the referral to the CPMP.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                          violated the principle of good administration and/or misused
                                                                          its powers. Referring to the Judgment of the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Instance of the European Communities in Case Artegodan et
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                al v Commission ( 1), the applicant submits that an Article 30
European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Pfizer Limited,                  referral can not lead to a binding Commission decision.
Sandwich, United Kingdom, represented by D. Anderson QC,                  Furthermore, the applicant submits that it is extremely unlikely
Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr I. Dodds-Smith and Mr T. Fox,                  that all of the national competent authorities would abandon
Solicitors.                                                               their views in face of the non-binding CPMP opinion. The
                                                                          applicant then concludes that the Article 30 referral was
                                                                          made for a purpose which cannot be achieved and that the
                                                                          Commission’s failure to take this into account leads to a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               breach of the principle of good administration. Further or
                                                                          alternatively, the approach of the Commission amounts to
—     annul the Decision of 6 January 2003 of the Commission              misuse of powers.
      initiating a referral ‘Lopid’ to the Committee for Pro-
      prietary Medicinal Products (‘CPMP’) under article 30 of
      the Community Code on human medicines.                              (1 ) Case T-74/00; Currently under appeal by the Commission: Case
                                                                               C-39/03 P.
—     order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is active in the field of medicinal products. The
applicant represents various companies that are the Marketing             Action brought on 18 April 2003 by SUCCESS-MARKET-
Authorisation Holders (‘MAH’) for ‘Lopid’ throughout the EU               ING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H. against
and Iceland. The authorisations in the EU were obtained under             the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
national marketing procedures. As a result, there are some                               (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM)
differences between the EU authorisations. Due to the diver-
gence of national decisions, the Commission notified the
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products                                           (Case T-128/03)
(‘EMEA’) of an official referral under Article 30 of the
Community Code on human medicines with the object of
producing a harmonised Summary of Product Characteristics                                          (2003/C 171/54)
(‘SPC’). The EMEA notified this Decision of the Commission to
the applicant by letter dated 27 January 2003.
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
In support of its claim, the applicant invokes a lack of
competence, infringement of an essential procedural require-
ment and/or misuse of powers.
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
According to the applicant, the contested Decision should be              Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) was brought before
annulled on the grounds of lack of competence of the EMEA/                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
CPMP and the Commission. The applicant argues that none of                18 April 2003 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensbera-
the three preconditions for a valid Article 30 referral by the            tungsgesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by
Commission have been met. First, the applicant submits that               G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
the divergent decisions concerning the terms of the SPCs are              bourg. Chipita International S.A., Athens, was also a party to
not divergent decisions concerning the authorisation of ‘Lopid’           the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                approved under the name ‘Allex’. This Marketing Authorisation
                                                                           (‘MA’) covers three pharmaceutical forms: film-coated tablets,
—     annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 13 February             syrup and an oral lyophilisate.
      2003 and/or the corrigendum of the decision of the First
      Board of Appeal of 13 March 2003;
                                                                           On 2 October 2002, the applicant submitted to the EMEA an
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs associated with             application for a type I variation of the MA to change the
      these proceedings.                                                   name of the oral lyophilisate form from ‘Allex 5 mg oral
                                                                           lyophilisate’ to ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’. In the
                                                                           light of further explanations given by the applicant, the EMEA
                                                                           refused with the contested decision to allow the name change.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           In support of its claim, the applicant invokes violations of the
The origin of the action is the same as in Case T-380/02                   applicable legislation and of the principle of non-discrimi-
(SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft                       nation. Furthermore, the applicant submits that its rights of
v OHIM, (OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003, p. 35)), and the pleas in law              defence have been violated and that the EMEA has violated the
and arguments correspond to those submitted in that case.                  obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongfully
                                                                           applied the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                           T-123/00 Thomae ( 1) to refuse the proposed name change.
                                                                           The applicant argues that the present case does not concern
                                                                           the question of whether different names can be used for the
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Shering-Plough Ltd.                     same medicinal product but the question of whether different
against the Commission of the European Communities                         names can be used for different medicinal products covered by
and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    the same MA. As a consequence, the applicant submits that
                       Products (‘EMEA’)                                   the Judgment in Case T-123/00 does not apply nor can it be
                                                                           extended to apply in the present case.
                         (Case T-133/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims furthermore that the EMEA has violated
                                                                           the principle of non-discrimination. According to the appli-
                         (2003/C 171/55)
                                                                           cant, there is no objective justification to treat the Marketing
                                                                           Authorisation Holders whose two pharmaceutical forms are
                   (Language of the case: English)                         covered by the same MA and those whose two pharmaceutical
                                                                           forms are covered by two MA differently.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  (1 ) Judgement of 10.12.2002, Case T-123/00 Dr. Karl Thomae
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    GmbH v Commission (not published yet).
Products (‘EMEA’) was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2003 by
Shering-Plough Ltd., Brussels, Belgium, represented by Dr.
G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Sniace, S.A. against
—     annul the Decision of 14 February 2003 of the EMEA                          the Commission of the European Communities
      rejecting a so-called type I variation for the name of the
      medicinal product ‘Allex 5 mg oral lyophilisate’ into
      ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’.                                                     (Case T-141/03)
—     order the Defendants to pay the Applicant’s costs                                            (2003/C 171/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is active in the field of medicinal products and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is the Marketing Authorisation Holder for medicinal products               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the