title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2001 in Case T-145/00 Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Survivor's pension — Reduction — Period within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 317/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              J. Currall) — application for taxation of costs to be reimbursed
                                                                         by the defendant to the applicant following the judgment of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance 23 March 2000 in Case T-95/98
                          of 5 July 2001
                                                                         Gogos v Commission [2000] ECR II-219 — the Court of
                                                                         First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
in Case T-25/99, Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann                    President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung,
 Roberts v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    Registrar, has made an order on 12 June 2001, in which it:
(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Complaint —                      Fixes the total amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case
    Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC)                T-95/98 at BEF 800 000.
                         (2001/C 317/46)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-25/99 Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann
Roberts, residing in Kempston (United Kingdom), represented
by B. Bedford, Barrister, and S. Ferdinand and J. Kelly,
Solicitors, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Nicholas Khan) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 November                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1998 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), compo-
sed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                  of 19 June 2001
a judgment on 5 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                         in Case T-145/00 Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht v Com-
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                            (Officials — Survivor’s pension — Reduction — Period
                                                                          within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-145/00: Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht, residing in Alfaz
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               del Pi (Spain), represented by H.-M. Becker, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and B. Wägenbaur) — application,
                         of 12 June 2001                                 primarily, for the annulment of the Commission decision of
                                                                         25 May 1999 reducing the applicant’s survivor’s pension
in Case T-95/98 DEP, Christos Gogos v Commission of                      — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended
                the European Communities (1)                             Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                         A. Potocki, J. Pirrung, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                                                                         H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2001, the
                  (Taxation of coverable costs)                          operative part of which is as follows:
                         (2001/C 317/47)                                 1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-95/98 DEP; Christos Gogos an official of the
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
Commission of the European Communities represented by
C.N. Tagaras, avocat, with an address for services in Luxem-
bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Alberto Maccaferri against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-56/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/37
Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Alberto Maccaferri                was the subject of the recruitment procedure in question for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 a post of temporary staff member at grade B 1 in another
                        ( Case T-56/96 )                             directorate general, and that neither the applicant nor the
                                                                     other successful candidates were informed of the exchange
                          ( 96/C 180/88 )
                                                                     or given clear, precise and complete reasons justifying it. The
                                                                     applicant states that in so far as the appointing authority
               (Language of the case: French)                        organized the said selection procedure with a view to filling
                                                                     a specific grade A5/A4 post in DG XXIII, the defendant
                                                                     institution breached the rules for filling vacant posts by
An action against the Commission of the European                     derogating in the present case from the rule requiring it to do
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    so by appointing a candidate whose name is on the list of
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1 996 by            suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board;
Alberto Maccaferri, of Bologna ( Italy ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             misuse of powers, in that it is apparent, according to the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          applicant, that the real motive for the exchange of posts at
at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener .                  issue was the recruitment as a temporary staff member at
                                                                     grade B 1 of a candidate chosen in advance, although the
                                                                     requirements of the service compelled the Commission to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         conclude a contact for services with a private undertaking in
                                                                     order for the applicant to be made available to it,
— annul the decision not to appoint the applicant to the
     post which was the subject of selection procedure               breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     62T/XXIII/93 with a view to filling the post of A4/5            expectations. Both the applicant and the other successful
     temporary staff member in Directorate-General XXIII             candidates in selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 could
     — ' Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and         legitimately expect the post which was the subject of
     Cooperatives ', sector for implementation of                    competition to be filled by the recruitment of one of
     administrative simplification in the Community,                 them .
— annul the decision to transfer the budgeted post of a
     temporary staff member at level A4/5 from DG XXIII to
     another directorate general and to replace it with the
     budgeted post of a temporary staff member at level
     B,
                                                                     Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-57/96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                                ( 96/C 180/89 )
The applicant challenges the Commission's decision not to                            (Language of the case: Italian)
appoint him to an A5/A4 post in DG XXIII which was the
subject of selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 despite his
having been included on the list of successful candidates . By       An action against the Commission of the European
a note from the Director of Directorate B, ' Community               Communities was brought before the Court of First
action to assist enterprises', the Director-General of               Instance on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini, an official in
DG XXIII was asked to 'take the appropriate steps' for him           the Commissions' scientific and technical services, working
to be recruited as quickly as possible . Nothing came of that        at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
request .                                                            represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with right of
                                                                     appearance before the Corte di Cassazione of the Italian
                                                                     Republic , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant observes that he entered the service of the            chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 Commission in 1993 as a member of the auxiliary staff, and
that when his contract as an auxiliary staff member expired
he was recruited by a private company in order to be made            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 available to DG XXIII of the Commission to perform the
work he did as a member of the auxiliary staff.
                                                                     — annul the refusal to pay him the installation allowance
                                                                         and daily subsistence allowance,
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
 support of his application :                                        — declare that the Commission is required to pay him the
                                                                         sums payable under Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to
 breach of the rules for filling vacant posts and of the duty to         the Staff Regulations or such sums as may be arrived at
state reasons. In the procedure at issue it is apparent that the         by recalculation of his allowances in accordance with
 appointing authority exchanged the budgeted post which                  Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,


title: Case T-12/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Application for further interim measures — Order addressed to third parties — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/24

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case T-12/07 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Application for further interim measures - Order addressed to third parties - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 140/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, F. Amato and V. Bottka, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures requesting, first, an order requiring the Commission to prohibit Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, on pain of a penalty, from using in any way or for any purpose whatsoever the information contained in the non-confidential version of the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 adopted in proceedings under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber (BR) and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber (ESBR)) which was forwarded to that company as a result of the Commission's decision COMP/F2/D (2006) 1095 of 6 November 2006 and, secondly, an order that the Commission forward to Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin a copy of the order to be given and, lastly, such other or further measures as the President of the Court may deem necessary.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal

text:
C 213/12                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.9.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                          24 June 1994, for a sports federation to apply to a professional
the Court should:                                                               sportsman of Russian nationality who is lawfully employed by
                                                                                a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, a rule
1.     declare that, by making the grant of a permanent                         which provides that clubs may use in competitions at national
       residence permit to nationals of the other Member States                 level only a limited number of players from countries outside
       referred to in Article 1(a), (c), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Decree        the European Economic Area?
       No 94-221 of 11 March 1994 laying down the conditions
       of entry to, and residence in France applicable to nationals
       of Member States of the European Communities entitled
       to freedom of movement for persons subject to a
       condition of reciprocity, the French Republic has failed
       to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC;
2.     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Dom-
                                                                                stolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case
                                                                                of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren
The French legislation determining the conditions for issuing
permanent residence permits to nationals of Member States
and members of their family, makes the grant of those permits
                                                                                (Case C-267/03)
subject to a condition of reciprocity, namely the condition that
the applicant be a national of a Member State which issues
residence permits of permanent validity to French nationals
who have exercised their right to freedom of movement. Such                                             (2003/C 213/21)
a condition is manifestly contrary to Article 12 EC, read with
Articles 17, 18(1), 39 and 43 EC.
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen
                                                                                (Supreme Court) of 10 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Registry on 18 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia                             of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren (public
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order                        prosecutor) on the following questions of interpretation of
of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov                      Council Directive 83/189/EEC ( 1) (as amended by Directive 88/
against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de                         182/EC (2) and by European Parliament and Council Directive
                     Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal                               94/10/EC (3) in the light of the amendments to the Lottery Law
                                                                                which entered into force on 1 January 1997:
                            (Case C-265/03)
                                                                                1.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
                                                                                the use of a product constitute a technical regulation
                            (2003/C 213/20)
                                                                                which must be notified under the regulation?
                                                                                2.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                a service which affects the use of a product constitute a
European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional                               technical regulation which must be notified under the
(National High Court) Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo                           regulation?
(Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) of
9 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Igor Simutenkov against                 3.    Can the redefinition in national law of a service connected
Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and                            with the design of a product constitute a technical
Ministerio Fiscal on the following question:                                          regulation which must be notified under the directive, if
                                                                                the new definition affects the use of the product?
Is it contrary to Article 23 of the Agreement on partnership and
cooperation establishing a partnership between the European                     4.    What is the significance for the obligation to notify of
Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the                             factors such as the replacement of a licence requirement
Russian Federation, of the other part, concluded in Corfu on                          by a prohibition in national law, the greater or lesser


title: Case C-170/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
   (Case C-170/06) (1)

   (2006/C 249/25)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.


title: Case T-533/08: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission
   (Case T-533/08) (1)

   2010/C 148/86

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009


title: Case C-523/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 15 December 2009 — AS Rakvere Piim, AS Maag Piimatööstus v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 15 December 2009 — AS Rakvere Piim, AS Maag Piimatööstus v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet
   (Case C-523/09)
   2010/C 63/42
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: AS Rakvere Piim and AS Maag Piimatööstus

      Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 27(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules be interpreted as not prohibiting the demanding of a fee from an operator at the minimum rate laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to the regulation, even if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates?

               2.

               Is a Member State entitled, on the conditions mentioned in the previous question, to establish fees for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to that regulation that are lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation, if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates, without the conditions laid down in Article 27(6) of that regulation being satisfied?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.


title: Case C-56/04: Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
3.4.2004               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 85/17
Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of                 Are Article 1 of Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and clauses 1(b) and
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded
                                                                       by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and put into effect by that directive
                          (Case C-51/04)                               to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law (in
                                                                       force before the directive was implemented) which differentiate
                                                                       between employment contracts signed with the public auth-
                          (2004/C 85/29)                               orities and contracts with employers in the private sector
                                                                       by excluding the former from the protection afforded by
                                                                       establishing an employment relationship of indefinite duration
                                                                       in the event of an infringement of binding rules on successive
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             fixed-term contracts?
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Febru-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-           (1) OJ L 175 of 10.7.1999, p. 43.
nidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
      notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/69/EC (1) of the European Parliament and          Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit             of the European Communities against the Republic of
      values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air,                                        Finland
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 10 of that directive;                                                        (Case C-56/04)
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/31)
Pleas in law and arguments
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The period for transposition of the directive into national law        10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
expired on 13 December 2002.                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks and M. Huttunen,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000, p. 12.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the
                                                                             harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       rights in the information society (1), since it has not
Genova by order of that Court of 21 January 2004 in the                      brought into force the laws, regulations and administrat-
case of Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda                            ive provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or
Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche                        at least has not informed the Commission of them;
                 Universitarie Convenzionate
                                                                       2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                          (Case C-53/04)
                          (2004/C 85/30)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova               on 22 December 2002.
of 21 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on
10 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       (1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Mr Marrosu and Mr Sardino against Azienda Ospedaliera
Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie
Convenzionate on the following question:


title: Case T-641/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Dellmeier v OHIM — Dell (LEXDELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark LEXDELL — Earlier Community figurative mark DELL — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Dellmeier v OHIM — Dell (LEXDELL)
   (Case T-641/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark LEXDELL - Earlier Community figurative mark DELL - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexandra Dellmeier (Munich, Germany) (represented by: initially J. Khöber, and subsequently by H. Eckermann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dell, Inc. (Round Rock, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2014 (Case R 966/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dell, Inc., and Ms Alexandra Dellmeier

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Alexandra Dellmeier to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-458/00: Action brought on 19 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 45/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.2.2001
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by the Commission                    Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                     of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                         of Luxembourg                                                                     lic
                         (Case C-458/00)                                                          (Case C-460/00)
                          (2001/C 45/26)                                                           (2001/C 45/27)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
ties on 19 December 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal
                                                                        represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in its Legal
Service, and Joselle Adda, a national civil servant on
                                                                        Service, and Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, with an address
secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de ]a
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
1.    declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed                   Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 7 of                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993                   to comply fully with Council Directive 96/48/EC of
      on the supervision and control of shipments of waste                    23 July 1996 (1) on the interoperability of the trans-
      within, into and out of the European Community (1) and                  European high-speed rail system, the Hellenic Republic
      Article 1(f) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (2)               has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
      in conjunction with point RI of Annex HB to that
      directive;
                                                                        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission submits that it follows from point R1 of                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Annex IIB to Directive 75/442, to which Article 1(f) of that            Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
directive refers, that not only use principally as a fuel but also      binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
the use of waste in connection with any other means of                  State to which they are addressed.
producing energy is to be treated as a recovery operation
under Community law and that that is the case as regards an
incineration plant, whether used principally or exclusively to          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
incinerate household waste without a link with an industrial            States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
manufacturing process, where that plant is capable of                   particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
recovering a substantial proportion of the energy contained in          of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
the incinerated waste. It rejects in particular the proposition         of the Community.
that a disposal operation is involved (in the present case
‘incineration on land’ within the meaning of point D10 of
Annex IIA to Directive 75/442). The definitions of ‘incineration        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
plant’ in Directives 89/369/EEC, 89/429/EEC and 94/67/EC                measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
reflect the objective of protecting the environment from the
harmful effects of waste incineration as such, both where the
incineration is to be treated as a disposal operation and where         The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
it comes under recovery since none of those directives specifies        has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
that the incineration it governs constitutes a recovery or a            directive fully into Greek law.
disposal operation.
(1) OJ No L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.                                         (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
(2) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.


title: Case T-277/13: Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Marquis Energy v Council

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/12

         Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Marquis Energy v Council
   (Case T-277/13)
   (2013/C 226/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marquis Energy LLC (Hennepin, United States) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ L 49 of 22.2.2013, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following ten pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted contrary to the Basic Regulation, since it opted for a countrywide duty and refused to calculate an individual dumping duty, despite the fact that it had all the information it needed to do so. In this regard, the applicants note that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts, an error in law, failed to state reasons for its conclusions, breached its duty of care and violated the rights of defence as well as the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations of the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission's failure to adjust the export price when calculating the dumping margin, by not making an upward adjustment to export prices for blends of the blender concerned, constitutes a manifest error in the assessment of the relevant facts and an error in law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts and infringed the Basic Regulation and the principle of non-discrimination by overestimating the volume of imports of bioethanol from the US and by not treating these imports in a similar way to third country imports of the same product.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and violated the Basic Regulation when performing injury margin calculations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and infringed the Basic Regulation by basing its material injury determination on a Union industry that does not manufacture a like product and by defining the Union industry before defining the like product.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is flawed as a result of manifest errors of assessment and errors of law since the material injury it provides for is determined on data pertaining to a non-representative sample of Union producers.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that other causes of material injury do not break the causal link between the targeted imports and alleged injury to the Union industry.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and violated the principle of proportionality by adopting a dumping measure which is not necessary.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors in law and breached the principles of sound administration and non-discrimination by considering that the investigation into US origin bioethanol was based on an adequate complaint, when the latter did not satisfy the requirements set by the Basic Regulation.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed multiple violations of the rights of defence of the applicant and failed to state reasons in the adoption of the Contested Regulation, given that the definitive disclosure on which it is based did not contain essential facts and considerations for the adoption of the definitive measures. The Commission also changed the period of validity of the measures without stating reasons while it did not allow the applicant to access to the non-confidential file in a timely manner nor did it allow sufficient time for the applicant to submit comments on the definitive disclosure.


title: Case T-526/10: Action brought on 9 November 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/34

         Action brought on 9 November 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission
   (Case T-526/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada), Nativak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada), Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada), Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada), Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec QC, Canada), Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc. (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa, Canada), NuTan Furs Inc. (Catalina, Canada), GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway), Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greeneland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland), Johannes Egede (Nuuk, Greenland), Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk, Greenland), William E. Scott & Son (Edinburgh, United Kingdom), Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Limited Șirketi (Istanbul, Turkey), Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Limited (Fleur de Lys, Canada) (represented by: J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul Regulation No 737/2010 pursuant to Article 263 TFUE;

               —

               declare Regulation No 1007/2009 inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFUE;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the European Council to pay the applicants’ costs;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the European Council to pay their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 (1) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products (2). The annulment of Regulation No 1007/2009, providing for restrictions on the placing on the market of the European Union of the seal products, is sought by the applicants in the framework of Case T-18/10.
   The applicants put forward two pleas in law in support of their claims.
   First, they argue that the implementing regulation has for legal basis the basic regulation against which they raise an exception of illegality based on Article 277 TFUE. In this regard, the applicants repeat the arguments put forward in support of their claims in Case T-18/10 (3).
   Second, in subsidiary order, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law when adopting the implementing regulation since it misused the powers conferred to it by the basic regulation. In the applicants’ view, the Commission has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it and they contend that the true aim pursued by the Commission, when adopting the implementing regulation, was to block any placing on the Union market of seal products.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 216, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36

      (3)  OJ 2010 C 100, p. 41


title: Case T-177/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential tariff — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Obligation to state reasons — Amount of the aid — New aid)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
   (Case T-177/10) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the aid - New aid))
   2014/C 421/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold, F. Salerno, G. Scassellati Sforzolini and G. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 relating to State Aid C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) granted by Italy in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni (OJ 2010, L 227, p. 62).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-474/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2013 — Thi Ly Pham

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2013 — Thi Ly Pham
   (Case C-474/13)
   2013/C 336/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Thi Ly Pham

      Authority involved: Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik

      Question referred

   Is it consistent with Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) to place a pre-deportation detainee in accommodation together with prisoners if he consents to such accommodation?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-89/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/29

         Action brought on 23 March 2007 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
   (Case T-89/07)
   (2007/C 117/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: VIP Car Solutions (Hoenheim, France) (represented by G. Welzer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament not to award the contract PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg, notified on 24 January 2007;

               —

               annul all subsequent acts;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 500 000 as damages;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay one-off costs amounting to EUR 5 000

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision of the European Parliament rejecting its tender in tender procedure PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg (1).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on an infringement of the award criteria contained in the call for tenders, particularly, concerning price inasmuch as it claims to have offered the lowest price and that that criteria should have accounted for 55 % in the award of the contract.
   Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision breached Article 100 of the Financial Regulation (2), under which certain details need not be disclosed where disclosure would harm the legitimate business interests of private undertakings or could distort fair competition between those undertakings. According to the applicant, the information which it requested, namely the price offered by the successful tenderer, does not fall within the scope of the Article and, consequently, the refusal to disclose it to the applicant is improper.

      (1)  Contract notice ‘Chauffeur-driven car and minibus service for Members of the European Parliament during part sessions in Strasbourg’, OJ 2006 S 177-187988.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.


title: Case C-30/08: Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/22

         Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-30/08)
   (2008/C 79/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra, Agent, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/78/EC of 14 November 2005 (1) implementing Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles, and the emission of gaseous pollutants from positive ignition engines fuelled with natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas for use in vehicles (2) and amending Annexes I, II, III, IV and VI thereto, and, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2005/78/EC expired on 8 November 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 313 of 29.11.2005, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 275 of 20.10.2005, p. 1.


title: Case T-295/11: Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Duscholux Ibérica v OHIM — Duschprodukter i Skandinavien (duschy)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/26

         Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Duscholux Ibérica v OHIM — Duschprodukter i Skandinavien (duschy)
   (Case T-295/11)
   2011/C 238/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Duscholux Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duschprodukter i Skandinavien AB (Hisings Backa, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2011 in case R 662/2010-1;

               —

               Subordinately, and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2011 in case R 662/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      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 international figurative mark ‘duschy’, for goods in classes 11 and 20 — Community trade mark application No W927073

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2116820, of the figurative mark ‘DUSCHO Harmony’, for goods in classes 6, 11 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, related to the right to fair trial; infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, because the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences that were submitted in due time by the applicant; and, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, because the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no risk of confusion between the conflicting trademarks.


title: Case T-224/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Caventa AG v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/17

         Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Caventa AG v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)
   (Case T-224/11)
   2011/C 194/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      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 10 February 2011 in Case R 1494/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Caventa AG.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BERG’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28 (Application No 7 115 009).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Christian Berg’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 25 and 35 (Community trade mark No 3 383 676), the opposition being directed against registration for goods in Classes 25 and 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (Consolidated Version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases T-40/07 P and T-62/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission and Commission v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Appeals — Staff cases — Officials — Leave — Medical leave — Placing on compulsory medical leave — Extension of compulsory medical leave — Prior new medical examination — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Amendment of the subject-matter of the dispute)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission and Commission v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho
   (Joined Cases T-40/07 P and T-62/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Officials - Leave - Medical leave - Placing on compulsory medical leave - Extension of compulsory medical leave - Prior new medical examination - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Amendment of the subject-matter of the dispute)
   2009/C 282/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer) (T-40/07 P); and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Falmagne, lawyer) (T-62/07 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Falmagne, lawyer) (T-40/07 P); and José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer) (T-62/07 P)

      Re:

   Two appeals against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission EC- SC-I-A-1-149 and II-A-I 577, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal in Case T-40/07 P;

               2.

               Orders José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission EC- SC-I-A-1-149 and II-A-I 577, in so far as it annulled the decision of 13 July 2004 and the decisions to extend the compulsory medical leave subsequent to the decision of 22 September 2004;

               4.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-17/05 as inadmissible as regards the decision of 13 July 2004 and the decisions to extend the compulsory medical leave subsequent to the decision of 22 September 2004;

               5.

               Dismisses the appeal in case T-62/07 P as to the remainder;

               6.

               In Case T-62/07 P, orders Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho to bear half of his own costs relating to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings;

               7.

               In Case T-62/07 P, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho relating to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.04.2007.


title: Case C-177/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras by order of that court of 30 March 2005 in Maria Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras by order of that court of 30 March 2005 in Maria Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
   (Case C-177/05)
   (2005/C 155/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras of 30 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between María Cristina Guerrero Pecino and the Fondo de Garantía Salarial.
   The Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras asks the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following questions:

               Having regard to the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, is the inequality in treatment created by Article 33.2 of the Workers' Statute and by the interpretation made of that provision by the Tribunal Supremo objectively justified and, consequently, must compensation for dismissal be excluded where it is payable to a worker pursuant to judicial conciliation within the ambit of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002,

               or, on the contrary, having regard to the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, is the inequality in treatment created by Article 33.2 of the Workers' Statute and by the interpretation made of that provision by the Tribunal Supremo not objectively justified and, consequently, must compensation for dismissal be included where it is payable to a worker pursuant to judicial conciliation within the ambit of Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002?

      (1)  OJ L 238 of 28.10.1980, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 270 of 8.10.2002, p. 10.


title: Case T-355/07: Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (ISDIN Pediatrícs)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/64

         Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (ISDIN Pediatrícs)
   (Case T-355/07)
   (2007/C 269/116)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde, lawyers, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   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 28 June 2007 in Case R 566/2006-1; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ISDIN Pediatrícs’ for products in among others class 5 — Community trade mark No 1 243 807

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Isdin, SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision insofar as it declared the invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Violation of the applicant's right to be heard pursuant to Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and violation of Article 52 read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation.


title: Case T-523/08: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA — Earlier national and Community figurative marks representing a black and white flower — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/38

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)
   (Case T-523/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA - Earlier national and Community figurative marks representing a black and white flower - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/67
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Arnold and C. Hicks, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1522/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-435/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH
   (Case C-435/11)
   2011/C 340/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CHS Tour Services GmbH

      Defendant: Team 4 Travel GmbH

      Question referred

   Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive is inadmissible?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’); OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case C-511/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru (Croatia) lodged on 25 September 2015 — Renata Horžić v Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru (Croatia) lodged on 25 September 2015 — Renata Horžić v Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka
   (Case C-511/15)
   (2016/C 027/06)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Prekršajni Sud u Bjelovaru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Renata Horžić

      Defendants: Privredna banka Zagreb, Božo Prka

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the retrospective application of the law [on consumer credit] be interpreted and determined exclusively in accordance with the provisions of that law, and is such an application of the law [on consumer credit] consistent with EU law, in particular Article 30 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008, (1) the first paragraph of which expressly states that that directive does not apply to credit agreements concluded before the entry into force of national legislation that transposed the directive into national law?

               2.

               May the criminal provision of Article 26(1)(28) of the Croatian law on consumer credit, in the context described above, be interpreted consistently with Article 23 of the directive and in the light of the transitory provisions in Article 30 thereof, as meaning that the penalties laid down for breach of a national provision adopted on the basis of the directive in question may not be applied to breaches that may be found in respect of credit agreements ongoing at the date of the implementation of the national implementing measures?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case T-619/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Badica and Kardiam v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Central African Republic — Freezing of funds — Initial decision to list — List of persons and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicants’ names — Implementation of a UN resolution — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Presumption of innocence — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Badica and Kardiam v Council
   (Case T-619/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Central African Republic - Freezing of funds - Initial decision to list - List of persons and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicants’ names - Implementation of a UN resolution - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Presumption of innocence - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 283/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic) and Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 implementing Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic (OJ 2015 L 229, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) and Kardiam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Joined Cases T-158/14, T-161/14 and T-163/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council (Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Undertakings — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Scope of the investigation — Sampling — Definition of the product concerned)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-158/14, T-161/14 and T-163/14) (1)

   ((Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Definition of the product concerned))
   (2017/C 121/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, China) and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JingAo Solar Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-540/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-630/13 DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/21

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-630/13 DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission

   (Case C-540/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 in Case T-630/13, in so far as the action is dismissed as to the remainder in point 2 of the operative part;

               2.

               Grant, in its entirety, the first head of claim in the application made at first instance to the effect that Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2013) 5666) is annulled in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installations listed in Annex I, Point A, to that decision with the installation identifiers DE000000000001320 and DE-new-14220-0045 on the list of installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC which Germany submitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the corresponding preliminary annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to these installations;

               3.

               In the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to in 1. above and refer the case back to that court;

               4.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that there has been an infringement of EU law for the purposes of the third option in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality in regarding as compatible with EU law the Commission’s rejection of the allocation of emission allowances free of charge on the basis of a Member State’s clause in respect of hardship cases. The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes its rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   The appellant submits, in respect of the ground of appeal put forward, that the Commission did not, in laying down the rules in respect of the free allocation of emission allowances in Decision 2011/278/EU, make any provision for individual fundamental rights to be adequately protected. It takes the view that the free allocation of emission allowances under Decision 2011/278/EU takes place on the basis of standardised calculation parameters. It submits that that decision does not, however, contain any rules which allow for an additional allocation of emission allowances free of charge in cases in which the allocation made by applying the standardised calculation parameters would lead to an abnormal burden or unreasonable hardship in individual cases.
   In the appellant’s view, the dismissal of the action infringes the fundamental rights in the Charter and the principle of proportionality. The General Court took into account only the onerous effect which typically occurs as a result of the emissions trading scheme and the allocation regime under Decision 2011/278/EU. The appellant submits that, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court completely disregarded the necessary protection of its individual fundamental rights.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27.


title: Case T-403/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (VIENNA HOUSE)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/51

         Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (VIENNA HOUSE)
   (Case T-403/17)
   (2017/C 277/73)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vienna International Hotelmanagement AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Zrzavy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements in red ‘VIENNA HOUSE’ — application No 14 501 308

      Contested decision: decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 332/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de Laat v Bestuur van het Landelĳk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — "Partially unemployed" — Meaning)

text:
C 186/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          30.6.2001
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First               which it:
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio,                  1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it                     comply with Council Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996
has ruled:                                                                       amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of com-
                                                                                pound feedingstuffs and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the
A commitment assumed by an insurance company to carry out, in                    circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,
return for remuneration at market rates, the business activities of              74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing
another insurance company, which is its 100 % subsidiary and which               Directive 77/101/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
would continue to conclude insurance contracts in its own name, does             fulfil its obligations under those directives;
not constitute an insurance transaction within the meaning of              2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:             (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
uniform basis of assessment.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 8 March 2001                                 the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de
                                                                           Laat v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzek-
in Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                                       eringen (1)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                           (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure             No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — ‘Partially unemployed’
       to transpose Directives 96/24/EC and 96/25/EC)                                                     — Meaning)
                           (2001/C 186/03)                                                              (2001/C 186/04)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-444/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
G. Kanellopoulos and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a                    rechtbank te Roermond, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            in the proceedings pending before that court between R. J. de
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 Laat and Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzeker-
Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996 amending Directive                    ingen — on the interpretation of Article 71(1)(a) of Council
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
1996 L 125, p. 33) and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,             self-employed persons and to members of their families
74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Direc-                   moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
tive 77/101/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 35), the Hellenic Republic              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those         1983 L 230, p. 6), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 186/3
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;                   ings pending before that court by Vincent Offermanns and
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   Esther Offermanns — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March                  4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                             employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
1.    In order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded      of their families moving within the Community, as amended
      as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
      meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 6 and
      No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons         and 43 EC), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
      and to members of their families moving within the Community,          Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward
      as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                     (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, uniform Community criteria                  General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      must be applied. That assessment may not be made on the                has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      basis of criteria drawn from national law.                             ruled:
2.    If, in a Member State other than that in whose territory he
      resides, a worker remains in employment with the same                  A benefit such as the advances on maintenance payments provided
      undertaking, but part-time, while remaining available for work         for by the Austrian Bundesgesetz über die Gewährung von Vorschüss-
      on a full-time basis, he is partially unemployed and the related       en auf den Unterhalt von Kindern (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz)
      benefits are to be provided by the competent institution of that       (Federal Austrian Law on the Grant of Advances on Maintenance for
      State. On the other hand, if a frontier worker no longer has any       Children) constitutes a family benefit within the meaning of
      link with that State and is wholly unemployed, those benefits          Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
      are to be provided by the institution of the place of residence at     1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
      its own expense. It is for the national court to determine on the      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
      basis of those criteria, in the case pending before it, the category   moving within the Community, as amended and, updated by Council
      to which the worker in question belongs.                               Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996. Consequently,
                                                                             persons residing in the territory of a Member State to which the
                                                                             provisions of that regulation apply are entitled, in accordance with
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                    Article 3 of that regulation, to receive such a benefit under the
                                                                             legislation of that Member State on the same conditions as that
                                                                             State’s nationals.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 15 March 2001                                              ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
in Case C-85/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Third Chamber)
the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria): by Vincent
             Offermanns and Esther Offermanns (1)                                                   of 16 November 2000
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family                         in Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL v Commission of
benefits’ — National legislation providing for payment of                                     the European Communities (1)
advances on maintenance payments due by a worker to his
minor child — Condition concerning the child’s nationality)                  (Appeal — International coach and bus transport of passen-
                                                                                gers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                            (2001/C 186/05)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-85/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster                         In Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL, having its registered
Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-               office in Beuvillers, France, represented by P. Barbier, avocat,


title: Case T-814/14: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2015 — Banco Espírito Santo v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid to the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA — Creation of a bridge bank — Decision not to raise objections — Commitments made by the Portuguese authorities — Monitoring of compliance with their commitments by a trustee — Payment of the trustee by the bad bank — Application for partial annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/56

         Order of the General Court of 1 December 2015 — Banco Espírito Santo v Commission
   (Case T-814/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid to the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA - Creation of a bridge bank - Decision not to raise objections - Commitments made by the Portuguese authorities - Monitoring of compliance with their commitments by a trustee - Payment of the trustee by the bad bank - Application for partial annulment - Inadmissible))
   (2016/C 038/75)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Espírito Santo SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and L.Bordalo e Sá, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, M. França and P.-J Loewenthal, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Points 9 and 18 of Annex II to Commission Decision C (2014) 5682 final, of 3 August 2014, State aid No SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal, Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, S.A., in so far as they impose, or may be interpreted as imposing, on the applicant the responsibility for ensuring the remuneration or payment of any other costs of the Monitoring Trustee with respect to the commitments made by the Portuguese Republic:

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the Portuguese Republic.

               3.

               Banco Espirito Santo SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               Banco Espirito Santo SA, the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic are each ordered to bear their own costs relating for the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.