title: Case T-388/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Productos Derivados de Acero v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/46

         Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Productos Derivados de Acero v Commission
   (Case T-388/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/73
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Productos Derivados de Acero, SA (Catarroja, Spain) (represented by: M.B. Escuder Tella, J. Viciano Pastor and F. Palau Ramirez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision [C(2010) 4387 final] on the ground that the five-year limitation period prescribed in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in respect of the imposition of penalties has expired;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the first claim does not succeed, annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that Productos Derivados de Acero, S.A (PRODERAC) participated in the restrictive agreements described in the contested decision and declare that that company did not participate in the collusive conduct as alleged;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the second claim does not succeed either, annul the contested decision in so far as it reduces the fine imposed on Productos Derivados de Acero, S.A (PRODERAC) by only 25 % and declare PRODERAC exempt from the fine in application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines on the ground that its inability to pay has been established;

               —

               in the further alternative, in the event that the third claim also fails, annul the contested decision in so far as it reduces the fine imposed on Productos Derivados de Acero, S.A (PRODERAC) by only 25 % and declare the fine to be reduced by 75 %;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant advances the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Preliminary issue: limitation period for the imposition of penalties. It is maintained in this regard that the limitation period for the imposition of penalties in respect of anti-competitive conduct expires five years from the last action taken for the purpose of the proceedings and that between the end date of the cartel, 19 September 2002, and the notification of the statement of objections, 30 September 2008, the limitation period was not interrupted.

               2.

               Misapplication of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and of the case-law of the Community Courts concerning those provisions, in so far as:

                           —

                           the applicant gave no express indication of its intention to participate in the agreements and concerted practices, nor can any such intention be implicitly inferred from any other circumstances;

                           —

                           the applicant clearly and publicly distanced itself from the collusive agreements inasmuch as its participation in meetings had no impact on its commercial conduct. In that regard, the failure to implement the collusive agreements is proof that the applicant’s participation in meetings did not influence its market conduct.

               3.

               Misapplication of point 35 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, by incorrectly applying by analogy the assessment of ‘serious and irreparable harm’ in relation to interim measures.


title: Case T-404/14: Action brought on 6 June 2014  — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/46

         Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)
   (Case T-404/14)
   2014/C 292/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: United Vehicles GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2014 in Case R 859/2013-4;

               —

               Uphold the appeal;

               —

               Uphold the opposition based on earlier Community trade mark No 6 0 25  399;

               —

               And dismiss the application for registration of the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLES’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: United Vehicles GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘UNITED VEHICLEs’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 30  041

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Junited’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37 and 39 to 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/1

         2010/C 260/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

      OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

      OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

      OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-149/00 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé against the order made on 9 February 2000 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-111/97 between G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 163/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
— The Commission also makes the following criticisms of                 The appellants claim that the Court should:
     France:
                                                                        1. annul the order made on 9 February 2000 by the Court of
     — it calculated by an incorrect method the net cost of                 First Instance in Case T-111/97;
         ‘non-profitable zones’;
                                                                        2. refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
                                                                            order that that court, having followed the corresponding
     — it did not take account of the intangible benefits
                                                                            procedure, may determine the substance of the action;
         accruing to France Télécom as a result of providing the
         universal service;
                                                                        3. reserve the decision on costs.
     — it infringed the rule that ‘Revenues shall be taken into
         account in calculating the net costs. Costs and revenues       Pleas in law and main arguments
         should be forward-looking’ (Annex III to Directive
         97/33/EC) by refusing to correct the figures forecast
         for 1998 because it would be ‘a delicate matter to             Infringements of the law: the appellants maintain their alle-
         integrate [the methodological progress achieved] in the        gation that the decision of 7 February 1996 (published in the
         definitive evaluation for 1998 having regard to the            Administrative Notices of 27 March 1996) constituted a new
         requirement of a degree of stability in the evaluation         fact justifying the fixing of a new time-limit for contesting the
         methods for a given year.’                                     Commission’s decisions classifying the appellants in grade at
                                                                        the time of their establishment as officials of the Commission.
— Article 5(5), second subparagraph, of Directive 97/33/EC
     has not been completely transposed into French domestic            The appellants further consider that, for the purposes of
     law and, in any event, has not been applied in a compliant         assessing whether their request was submitted within the
     manner by the French authorities as regards the publication        prescribed period, the Commission, and thereafter the Court
     of individual contributions by the operators involved in           of First Instance, should have taken into account the duty
     financing the universal service.                                   incumbent on the Community institutions to have regard for
                                                                        the welfare and interests of officials. The contested order does
                                                                        not deal with that argument put forward by the appellants.
(1) OJ L 192 of 24 July 1990, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
(3) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                                                                                (Case C-150/00)
Appeal brought on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana                                             (2000/C 163/40)
and S. Vadé against the order made on 9 February 2000
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
European Communities in Case T-111/97 between
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé and the Commission of the
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                     European Communities
                                                                        represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        (Case C-149/00 P)                               the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                         (2000/C 163/39)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An appeal against the order made on 9 February 2000 by the              1. declare that, by classifying vitamin and mineral nutrient
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                preparations as medicinal products where they contain
Communities in Case T-111/97 between G. Valero Jordana                      vitamins A, D and K or mineral nutrients of the chromate
and S. Vadé and the Commission of the European Communi-                     group and where they exceed the daily dose or generally,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                without explaining that, by reason of the addition of extra
Communities on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana and                       vitamins or because of their vitamin or mineral content,
S. Vadé, represented by C. Amo Quiñones, lawyer, with an                   they constitute a serious risk to health, the Republic of
address for service at 23 Avenue Jacques Pasteur, B-1180                    Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 28 EC
Brussels.                                                                   (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty);


title: Case C-163/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations — Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament — Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello
   (Case C-163/10) (1)

   (Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of making false accusations - Statements made outside the precincts of the Parliament - Definition of opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)
   2011/C 311/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Isernia

      Party in the main proceedings

   Aldo Patriciello

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Isernia — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with slander following a false accusation levelled at a representative of the forces of law and order — Notion of the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-115/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/6

         Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission
   (Case C-115/12 P)
   2012/C 138/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10;

               —

               rule once and for all on the dispute itself by annulling Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France, or refer the case back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(1)of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) by categorising the tax relief granted to the partners, who are natural persons, of the general commercial partnerships which invested in the public works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers (Buccaneer’s Creek), as a direct subsidy for the purposes of that provision.
   By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief measures could be categorised as subsidies for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
   By the second part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the tax relief was direct for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC since that relief was granted specifically for the purposes of the works contract in question, although it was not granted to the developer, contractor, operator or owner of the establishment in question.
   By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by distorting the content of the contested decision and substituting its own reasoning for that of the Commission. According to the French Government, the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision by taking the view that the Commission took the overall aims and functions of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, and not the nature of the works carried out, as its basis in determining whether the works contract for the renovation and extension of that holiday village was covered by Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
   By its third plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not infringed Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by categorising the works contract for the renovation and extension of Club Méditerranée’s holiday village, Les Boucaniers, as a contract relating to building work for a facility intended for sports, recreation and leisure within the meaning of that provision.
   By the first part of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure in Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted broadly, as not being restricted to facilities which seek to meet the traditional needs of public authorities, that is to say the collective needs of users.
   By the second branch of that plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the concept of works contracts for the purposes of Article 2 of Directive 93/37/EEC should be interpreted independently of the concept of public works contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that directive and that, consequently, the Commission did not infringe Article 2(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC by finding that the works contract at issue in the present case was covered by that provision although, according to the French Government, that contract was not of direct economic interest to the contracting authority.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54


title: Case T-526/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Axa Versicherung v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/29

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Axa Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-526/12) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 253/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission to refuse the applicants access to documents from the case-file in Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2)

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Glass Germany GmbH.

               3)

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by AXA Versicherung AG.

               4)

               AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe and AGC Glass Germany are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-581/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Intra-Presse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11: Golden Balls Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/8

         Appeal brought on 15 November 2013 by Intra-Presse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11: Golden Balls Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-581/13 P)
   2014/C 24/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Intra-Presse (represented by: P. Péters, advocaat, T. de Haan, avocat, M. Laborde, avocate)

      Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Golden Balls Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-448/11;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rule on the action brought by Intra-Presse under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1);

               —

               order that the costs be reserved.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds.
   Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in defining the relevant public, in assessing the degree of conceptual similarity between marks by adding a requirement of ‘intellectual process of translation’, ‘begin by translating’ or ‘prior translation’, and in omitting to take the reputation of the earlier mark for services in Class 41 into account. Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 8(5) CTMR by failing to carry out a global assessment and omitting to examine the relevance of the reputation of Appellant’s earlier mark and the existence of a possible link.

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


title: Case C-328/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 4 July 2014  — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Anna Pančurová and Others

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 4 July 2014 — CD Consulting s.r.o. v Anna Pančurová and Others
   (Case C-328/14)
   2014/C 351/03
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CD Consulting s.r.o.

      Defendants: Anna Pančurová and Others

      Question referred

   Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 4 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which in principle does not allow the national court deciding on rights under an endorsed bill of exchange at any stage of the proceedings to examine of its own motion the agreement and the basis of the legal relationship and the possible unfair nature of a contractual term and any breach of the law regulating the consequences of the failure to state the APR in the consumer credit agreement from which the bill of exchange arose?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 42, p. 48.


title: Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-290/95)

text:
No C 286/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
of First Instance in Case T-31 /91 between Solvay SA and the                  such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            decision .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 21 .
Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the judgment delivered
1 . set aside the Court of First Instance 's judgment in Case          on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
    T-31 /91 (');                                                      Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-32/91
                                                                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's                                          Case C-288/95 P)
    decision based upon the lack of authentication;                                                 95/C 286/08 )
3 . remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
    decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
    against the Commission 's decision ;                               of First Instance in Case T-32/91 between Solvay SA and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .                      30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                       the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
— Errors of law and reasoning as regards the admissibility             The appellant claims that the Court should :
    of Solvay's new plea in law, the organization of the
    procedure and the rules of proof and evidence . The                 1 . set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment in Case
    Court of First Instance committed an error of law by                      T-32/91 ( 1 );
    holding that the statements by the Commission to which
    reference is made could amount in themselves to a new              2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission 's
    matter of fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of its                 decision based upon the lack of authentication;
    Rules of Procedure . The Court committed an error of
                                                                        3.     remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a
    law by holding that there was no limit of time for raising
    a new plea in law under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of                   decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged
    Procedure . In ordering the Commission to produce the                      against the Commission 's decision;
    text of the decision at issue as authenticated at the time,
    the Court committed an error of law, in that it took a              4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .
     mistaken view of its procedure and the rules of proof and
     evidence, and also made a mistake of reasoning in that it          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to explain in both the order of 25 October and the
     judgment why it had concluded that it should order the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     Commission to produce that text .                                  in Case C-287/95 P ( 2 ).
 — Errors of law and reasoning as regards the purpose of                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p. 21 .
     authentication and the consequences of a failure to                ( 2 ) See page 3 of this Official Journal .
     authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption. The
     Court committed an error of law by holding that
     authentication was a formal requirement which had to
     be observed independently of the existence or not of any
     evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of
     the notified text . The Court committed an error of law            Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
     and of reasoning by holding that authentication had to                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     take place before the act was notified to the addressee,                                     ( Case C-290/95 )
     failing which it was void, and that the authentication
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/09 )
     carried out in the present case had been defective . The
     Court committed an error of law and incidentally failed
     to fulfill its obligation to give reasons for its judgment by       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     failing to consider whether the alleged defect had been             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10. 95         I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/5
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal                    fresh ruling on Mr Ojha 's claims for compensation for
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the above decision ,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               proceedings, and of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance .
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     measures necessary to implement Council Directive
     92/109/EEC (') of 14 December 1992 on the                         1 . Error of law and reasoning as regards the extent of the
                                                                           Commission 's obligation to state reasons , in so far as the
     manufacture and the placing on the market of certain                  Court of First Instance held that sufficient reasons were
     substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
                                                                           stated for the contested Commission decision
     drugs and psychotropic substances, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community                  ( paragraphs 59 to 62 of the judgment );
     law,                                                              2 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance held that the Commission had not infringed the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                            appellant's defence rights by failing to communicate to
                                                                           him the documents on which the contested decision was
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        based;
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which states that a directive is         3 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved,                Instance upheld the Commission 's argument that the
entails for Member States an obligation to comply with the                 mere existence of complaints against the appellant,
time limits laid down in directives for their transposition . In           irrespective of whether they were well founded, justified
the present case, the prescribed period expired on 1 July                  the reassignment of the appellant to Brussels in the
1993 , at which time the Italian Republic had still not                    interests of the service;
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive
92 / 109/EEC .                                                         4 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance accepted the Commission 's argument that the
(•) OJ No L 370 , 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                                contested decision could be justified by the interests of
                                                                           the service, having regard to an allegedly tense situation
                                                                           within the service ;
                                                                       5 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance did not take the personal interests of the
Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha                          appellant into account;
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in               6 . Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in
Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European                     that the Court of First Instance allowed documents not
                          Communities                                      forming part of an official 's personal file to be used
                      ( Case C-294/95 P)                                   against him.
                         ( 95/C 286/ 10 )
An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 12 September 1995 by Girish                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit
Ojha , represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                  Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995 , in the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         case of Jackie Farrell against James Long
at the Chambers of L. Friden, Avenue Guillaume, against the
                                                                                ( Case C-295 /95 )
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case                                             ( 95 /C 286/ 11
T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European
Communities .                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Dublin Circuit
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Family Court of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 15 September 1995 , for a preliminary
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             ruling in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long, on the
     the European Communities of 6 July 1995 in Case                   following question :
     T-36/93 ,
                                                                       Do the provisions of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Convention on
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 October 1992 ,                Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
     reassigning the appellant together with his post from the         Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on 27 September
      Commission delegation in Dacca to the seat of the                 1968 require as a condition precedent to the institution of
      Commission in Brussels,                                          maintenance proceedings in the Irish Courts by an applicant


title: Case C-530/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2014  — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v National Lottery Commission (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 52(2)(c) — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier copyright under national law — Application by OHIM of national law — Role of the European Union judicature)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v National Lottery Commission
   (Case C-530/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52(2)(c) - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier copyright under national law - Application by OHIM of national law - Role of the European Union judicature))
   2014/C 151/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: National Lottery Commission (represented by: R. Cardas, Advocate, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed Decision R 1028/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 9 June 2010, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division which upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity lodged by Mediatek Italia and Giuseppe De Grégorio — Community figurative mark representing a hand with two crossed fingers and a smiling face — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of an earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

               3.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/5

         Taking of the oath of a new Member of the Civil Service Tribunal
   2009/C 267/10
   Following her appointment as Judge at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for the period from 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2015 by decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 June 2009 (1), Ms Rofes i Pujol took the oath before the Court of Justice on 6 October 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 156 of 19 June 2009, p. 56.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2001 in Case C-324/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Conditions justifying prohibitions or restrictions on the export of waste — National legislation imposing the obligation to offer waste to an approved body)

text:
16.2.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 44/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
                                                                             2001, in which it has ruled:
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             Paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95
                                                                             of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the
                      of 13 December 2001                                    system of additional import duties and fixing additional import
                                                                             duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and
in Case C-317/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         repealing Regulation No 163/67/EC, are invalid, inasmuch as they
from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven):                         provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general
Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV v Minister van Landbouw,                           rule, established on the basis of the representative price laid down in
                  Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)                               Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1484/95 and that the duty is
                                                                             established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
                                                                             concerned only if the importer so requests.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Additional duties on
importation — Validity of Article 3 of Regulation (EC)
                            No 1484/95)                                      (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                          (2002/C 44/01)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                              of 13 December 2001
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-324/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): DaimlerChrysler AG v
                                                                                Land Baden-Württemberg (1)
In Case C-317/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven                        (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands)                  shipments of waste — Conditions justifying prohibitions or
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              restrictions on the export of waste — National legislation
court between Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV and Minister van                     imposing the obligation to offer waste to an approved body)
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on the validity of
Article 3(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC)                                                      (2002/C 44/02)
No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for
implementing the system of additional import duties and                                          (Language of the case: German)
fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg
sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47) and on the interpret-                                       in the European Court Reports)
ation of that provision and of Articles 65 and 220(2)(b) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,                      In Case C-324/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris                      DaimlerChrysler AG and Land Baden-Württemberg, on the
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ                  for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
1993 L 30, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    court between Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger and
Iglesias, President, N. Colneric (President of Chambers), C. Gul-            Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the interpretation
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevón,                  of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,                   from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31), and Council
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a                   Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxi-
judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                         mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987
1.    Where a national measure generally prohibiting exports of              L 42, p. 48) as amended by Council Directive 90/88/EEC of
      waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity,        22 February 1990 (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14), the Court (Sixth
      priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with         Chamber), composed of F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
      Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of            C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, it is         Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given
      not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further     a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 EC and             1.    Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
      30 EC).                                                                      protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
                                                                                from business premises is to be interpreted as applying to a
2.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 259/93 does not authorise a
                                                                                secured-credit agreement such as that in point in the main
      Member State which has adopted legislation introducing an
                                                                                proceedings, with the result that the right of cancellation
      obligation to offer waste for disposal to an approved body to
                                                                                provided for in Article 5 of that directive is available to a
      provide that, where the waste is not allocated to a treatment
                                                                                consumer who has entered into a contract of that type in one of
      centre for which that body is responsible, its shipment to
                                                                                the cases specified in Article 1.
      treatment installations in other Member States is authorised
      only on condition that the intended disposal satisfy the               2.    Directive 85/577 precludes the national legislature from
      requirements of the environmental protection legislation of that             imposing a time-limit of one year from the conclusion of the
      Member State.                                                                contract within which the right of cancellation provided for in
3.    Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 259/93 preclude a Member                    Article 5 of that directive may be exercised, where the consumer
      State from applying to shipments between Member States of                    has not received the information specified in Article 4.
      waste for disposal, before the implementation of the notification
      procedure laid down in the regulation, its own procedure in            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      relation to the offer and allocation of the waste.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 13 December 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                   in Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                       of 13 December 2001
in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Refusal
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga                                    to end the ban on British beef and veal)
   Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/04)
(Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of
cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge                                        (Language of the case: French)
                      on immovable property)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 44/03)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Agents: D. Booss and G. Berscheid), supported by United
                                                                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent:
                                                                             J.E. Collins, assisted by D. Anderson QC and M. Hoskins) v
In Case C-481/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                   French Republic (Agents: initially K. Rispal-Bellanger and
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Republic of Germany)                    J.-F. Dobelle, subsequently R. Loosli-Surrans and J.-F. Dobelle,


title: Case C-334/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) — Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business — Temporary use for private purposes — Permanent alterations to that item — Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations — Right to deduct)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-334/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) - Part of a capital item forming part of the assets of a business - Temporary use for private purposes - Permanent alterations to that item - Payment of VAT in respect of the permanent alterations - Right to deduct)
   2012/C 295/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) 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: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Taxable person who has made temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business and who has, for those purposes, made permanent alterations to that part of the item — Entitlement to deduct the VAT paid in respect of the permanent alterations

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2), first subparagraph, (a) and (b), Article 11A(1)(c) and Article 17(2) 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: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a taxable person who makes temporary use for private purposes of part of a capital item forming part of the assets of his business is entitled, under those provisions, to deduct the input value added tax on the expenditure incurred in carrying out permanent alterations to that item even though those alterations were carried out with a view to that temporary use for private purposes and, secondly, that right to deduct exists irrespective of whether the taxable person was charged VAT and deducted that VAT upon the acquisition of the capital item to which those alterations were made.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-373/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/14

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET)
   (Case T-373/12)
   2012/C 319/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Planet GDZ AG (Tagelswangen, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2012 in Case R 1350/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘PRO PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Planet GDZ AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘PLANET’ for goods in Classes 6 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case T-202/06: Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/50

         Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)
   (Case T-202/06)
   (2006/C 224/105)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Select Appointments (Holdings) Ltd. (St Albans, United Kingdom) (represented by: G.R. Fernando, Barrister, C.J. Leech, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manpower Inc. (Milwaukee, USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               That the decision of the OHIM Board of Appeal dated 18 May 2006 permitting the registration of application No 1 030 980 and dismissing opposition No B 303 158 be set aside;

               —

               that the application be refused; and

               —

               that the appellant have its costs of the Appeal and below before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Manpower Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TELESELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 (Assessment and training services in the field of telephone call handling)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Select Appointments (Holdings)

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘SELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 — application No 2 111 367 (employment agency, consultancy, information on job opportunities, advertising and personnel management services)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as, according to the applicant, the likelihood of confusion even in parts of the European Community justified the refusal of registration of the contested mark. Considering the average consumers do not necessarily speak English, the word mark would not have any significant meaning to them, as regards the part ‘SELECT’.
   Moreover, the applicant claims that assessment services provided by the contested mark are encompassed by the wider employment agency services covered by its own Community trade mark.


title: Case T-686/13: Action brought on 17 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/42

         Action brought on 17 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)
   (Case T-686/13)
   2014/C 52/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, O. Klimis, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2013 in Case R 300/2013-2 in so far as the registration of Community mark No 10 940 161 for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 was refused;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of four five-pointed stars, preceded and followed by a horizontal line for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 940 161

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 75, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-464/12 P (R): Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/32

         Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-464/12 P (R))
   2012/C 379/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the decision of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 rejecting the application for suspension of the operation of: (i) the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request for payment of the sum of EUR 1 661, unlawfully deducted, in the appellant’s opinion, from his invalidity allowance; (ii) the Commission’s implied decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint; and (iii) any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.
   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

               —

               First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, reasons which are manifestly illogical, unreasonable and arbitrary, as well as manifest error of assessment with regard to those reasons, in particular with regard to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the order.

               —

               Second ground, alleging incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and clear breach of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, with regard to the order to ‘pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000’.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-247/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Sintesi SpA v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Award of contracts — Right of the contracting authority to choose between the criterion of the lowest price and that of the most economically advantageous tender)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-247/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Sintesi SpA v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici (1)

   (Directive 93/37/EEC - Public works contracts - Award of contracts - Right of the contracting authority to choose between the criterion of the lowest price and that of the most economically advantageous tender)
   (2004/C 300/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-247/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy), made by decision of 26 June 2002, received at the Court on 8 June 2002, in the proceedings pending before that court between Sintesi SpA and Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici, in the presence of: Ingg. Provera e Carrassi SpA — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Azarmendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 30(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules which, for the purpose of awarding public works contracts following open or restricted tendering procedures, impose a general and abstract requirement that the contracting authorities use only the criterion of the lowest price.

      (1)  OJ C 202 du 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-47/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 February 2015  — Sélina Affum (Amissah by marriage) v Préfet du Pas de Calais, Procureur général de la Cour d'appel de Douai

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Sélina Affum (Amissah by marriage) v Préfet du Pas de Calais, Procureur général de la Cour d'appel de Douai
   (Case C-47/15)
   (2015/C 118/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sélina Affum (Amissah by marriage)

      Defendants: Préfet du Pas de Calais, Procureur général de la Cour d'appel de Douai

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national is staying illegally in the territory of a Member State and thus falls within the scope of that directive, as defined in Article 2(1) thereof, where that foreign national is merely in transit as a passenger on a coach travelling in the territory of that Members State from another Member State forming part of the Schengen area and bound for a different Member State?

               2.

               Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not preclude national legislation under which a third-country national who entered the territory of a Member State illegally is liable to a term of imprisonment where the foreign national in question may be taken back by another Member State pursuant to an agreement or an arrangement concluded with that State prior to the entry into force of the directive?

               3.

               Depending on the answer given to Question 2, is Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a third-country national who entered the territory of a Member State illegally is liable to a term of imprisonment under the same conditions as those laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in Achughbabian (C-329/11) (2) in so far as concerns illegal stay, which are contingent on the person concerned not having been previously subject to the coercive measures referred to in Article 8 of the directive and the duration of that person’s detention?

      (1)  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 (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

      (2)  EU:C:2011:807.


title: Case T-465/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Salej and Technologie Buczek v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/41

         Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Salej and Technologie Buczek v Commission
   (Case T-465/07)
   (2008/C 64/66)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicants: Emilian Salej, acting as receiver for Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland), and Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal adviser)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

               —

               declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned in Article 1 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the form of order sought, the applicants put forward pleas in law identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-440/07 Huta Buczek v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 22, p. 50.


title: Case F-86/07: Action brought on 25 August 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/44

         Action brought on 25 August 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-86/07)
   (2007/C 247/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision (‘the contested decision’), in whatever form, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's claim of 10 July 2006 for compensation for damage caused to him by the unlawful actions and conduct, particularly psychological harassments, perpetrated by the Commission's servants during the applicant's assignment to the Commission delegation in Angola;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the note dated 9 October 2006, prot. PMO.3/MLP/mc D(2006) 9277;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the note dated 23 April 2007, ref. ADMINB.2/MB/ade D(2007) 8725, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 27 December 2006 against the contested decision and the note of 9 October 2006;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the note of 27 September 2005, ref. ADMIN/IDOC/GC/eh D(2005) 22005;

               —

               ascertain the reality of the actions and conduct complained of in the applicant's claim of 10 July 2006, declaring them to be unlawful, or, in the alternative, order the Commission to carry out an investigation without delay;

               —

               order the Commission to communicate the results of such investigation without delay and in writing, giving them suitable publicity and making them available to the public;

               —

               order the Commission forthwith to destroy the original and all copies of the archive note dated 14 August 2001, headed ‘Conduite professionnelle de M. Luigi Marcuccio, conseiller économique à la délégation en Angola’, and to notify the applicant in writing of that destruction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 520 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just, in compensation for damage suffered by the applicant to date;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant, from tomorrow until final implementation of judgment in favour of the applicant, the daily sum of EUR 1 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just, to be paid on the first day of each month in arrear, in respect of damage suffered by the applicant during the period between tomorrow and the date of implementation.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Absolute failure to state reasons, and illogicality, inconsistency, irrationality, confusion and pretexts in the reasons put forward by the Commission; (2) serious and manifest breach of the law; (3) infringement of the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration.


title: Case T-676/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Spain v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/25

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-676/14)
   2014/C 388/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2014) 4856 final of 11 July 2014 on the launching of an investigation related to the manipulation of statistics in Spain as referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of legislation

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity, as applied to Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area (OJ 2011 L 306, p. 1) and Decision 2012/678/EU, mean that facts arising before 13 December 2011 cannot be the subject of an investigation because, at that date, the facts at issue could not be penalised. The only data in respect of which a penalty could be applied are those notified in April 2012. In fact, the period covered by the investigation must relate only to data to be found in notifications made after 2012.

                     The period covered by the investigation must relate only to data in the notifications made after 2012 where those data relate to facts that occurred after December 2011, the date on which the Regulation No 1173/2011 entered into force. Consequently there is no legal basis for an investigation in relation to facts that occurred before 13 December 2011.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011

                           —

                           According to the applicant, there is no serious evidence of facts amounting to the manipulation of data relating to the Spanish deficit and public debt. In reviewing those data, the Spanish authorities gave clear and adequate explanations.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the Kingdom of Spain’s rights of defence

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the investigation that has been launched is a covert investigation, conducted outside established procedures, in breach of the rights of defence of the Kingdom of Spain.


title: Case C-406/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-406/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/120
   Language of the case: Slovene
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case T-233/09: Action brought on 12 June 2009 — Access Info Europe v Council

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/40

         Action brought on 12 June 2009 — Access Info Europe v Council
   (Case T-233/09)
   2009/C 205/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), the annulment of the Council’s decision to refuse full access to document 16338/08, a note from the General Secretariat to the Working Party on Information concerning the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The Council has allegedly only granted the applicant access to a redacted version of this document, excluding those parts which enable the delegations making proposals for modifications to be identified.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled on the following grounds:
   First, the applicant claims that the Council breached Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that

               (a)

               it failed to show how the disclosure of the names of the delegations would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process;

               (b)

               it did not substantiate the risk that the delegations’ views would cease to be submitted in writing nor how this would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process; and in that

               (c)

               it failed to take into account the overriding public interest in disclosure of the identity of the national delegations.

         Second, the applicant submits that the Council violated the duty to state reasons as required by Article 253 EC and Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004 in Case C-309/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Environment — Free movement of goods — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 94/62/EC — Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 14 December 2004
   in Case C-309/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG v Land Baden-Württemberg
       (1)

   (Environment - Free movement of goods - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 94/62/EC - Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging)
   (2005/C 45/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-309/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), made by order of 21 August 2002, received at the Court on 29 August 2002, in the proceedings between Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., and S. Spitz KG and Land Baden-Württemberg – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 1(2) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste does not preclude the Member States from introducing measures designed to promote systems for the reuse of packaging.

               2.

               While Article 7 of Directive 94/62 does not confer on the producers and distributors concerned any right to continue to participate in a given packaging-waste management system, it precludes the replacement of a global system for the collection of packaging waste with a deposit and return system where the new system is not equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives of that directive or where the changeover to the new system does not take place without a break and without jeopardising the ability of economic operators in the sectors concerned actually to participate in the new system as soon as it enters into force.

               3.

               Article 28 EC precludes national rules, such as those laid down in Paragraphs 8(1) and 9(2) of the Verordnung über die Vermeidung und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen (Regulation on the Avoidance and Recovery of Packaging Waste), when they announce that a global packaging-waste collection system is to be replaced by a deposit and return system without the producers and distributors concerned having a reasonable transitional period to adapt thereto and being assured that, at the time when the packaging-waste management system changes, they can actually participate in an operational system.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case T-58/09: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Schemaventotto v Commission (Action for annulment — Concentrations — Abandonment of an intended concentration — Decision to close the procedure opened under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/41

      Order of the General Court of 2 September 2010 — Schemaventotto v Commission
      (Case T-58/09) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Concentrations - Abandonment of an intended concentration - Decision to close the procedure opened under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
      (2010/C 288/78)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Schemaventotto SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, G. Rizza and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent and P. Callol García, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision or decisions allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 13 August 2008 concerning the proceeding opened under Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1) in relation to the concentration between the intervener and Autostrade SpA (Case COMP/M.4388 Abertis v Autostrade)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Schemaventotto SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                  Abertis Infraestructuras, SA shall bear its own costs..

         (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-294/16: Action brought on 8 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/38

         Action brought on 8 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)
   (Case T-294/16)
   (2016/C 279/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MOUNT’ — EU trade mark No 7 157 233

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 1857/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present appeal;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the registration of the EUTM No. 7.157.233 ‘GOLD MOUNT’ (figurative) valid for all the products covered;

               —

               condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-460/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/35

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Virgin Media v Commission
   (Case T-460/12) (1)

   (2016/C 314/48)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 October 2002 In Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P: Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappĳ NV (LVM) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Polyvinylchloride (PVC) — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Annulment of a Commission decision — New decision — Documents predating the first decision — Res judicata — Principle of non bis in idem — Limitation — Reasonable period — Statement of reasons — Access to the file — Fair hearing — Professional secrecy — Self-incrimination — Private life — Fines)

text:
21.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 323/9
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by M. H.
                                                                         van der Woude) (C-238/99 P and C-244/99 P), (Agent:
                                                                         R. M. Morresi), (C-245/99 P and C-251/99 P), (Agent: E. Mor-
                                                                         gan de Rivery), (C-247/99 P), and (Agent: A. Böhlke), (C-250/
                      of 15 October 2002                                 99 P and C-252/99 P), and by (Agent: M. D. Lloyd-Jones, QC
                                                                         (C-254/99 P), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                         President, J.-P. Puissochet (President of Chamber), C. Gulmann
                                                                         (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, F. Macken,
                                                                         N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges, Advocate General:
In Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P,
                                                                         J. Mischo, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P:
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM) and Others v                       and L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on
                                                                         15 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                         1.    Joins Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/
(Appeal — Competition — Polyvinylchloride (PVC) —                              99 P, C-250/99 P, C-251/99 P, C-252/99 P and C-254/
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
                                                                               99 P for the purposes of the judgment.
Annulment of a Commission decision — New decision —
Documents predating the first decision — Res judicata —
Principle of non bis in idem — Limitation — Reasonable
period — Statement of reasons — Access to the file — Fair                2.    Partially annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
hearing — Professional secrecy — Self-incrimination —                          20 April 1999 in Joined Cases T-305/94 to T-307/94,
                      Private life — Fines)                                    T-313/94 to T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                                                               T-329/94 and T-335/94 Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and
                                                                               Others v Commission to the extent that it:
                         (2002/C 323/09)
                                                                               —     dismissed the new plea raised by Montedison SpA alleging
                                                                                infringement of its right of access to the Commission’s
                                                                                file;
(Languages of the case: German, English, French, Italian and Dutch)
                                                                               —     failed to respond to the plea raised by Montedison SpA
                                                                                alleging a definitive transfer to the Community judicature
                                                                                of the power to impose penalties following the Com-
                                                                                mission’s decision.
In Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/
99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P, Limburgse                 3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeals.
Vinyl Maatschappij NV (LVM), established in Brussels
(Belgium), (Agent: I. G. F. Cath), (C-238/99 P), DSM NV and
DSM Kunststoffen BV, established in Heerlen (Netherlands),               4.    Dismisses the action brought by Montedison SpA to the extent
(Agent: I. G. F. Cath), (C-244/99 P), Montedison SpA, estab-                   that it is based on, first, the plea alleging infringement of its
lished in Milan (Italy), (Agents: G. Celona and P. A. M. Ferrari),             right of access to the Commission’s file and, second, the plea
(C-245/99 P), Elf Atochem SA, established in Paris (France),                   alleging a definitive transfer to the Community judicature of the
(Agent: X. de Roux), (C-247/99 P), Degussa AG, formerly                        power to impose penalties following the Commission’s decision.
Degussa-Hüls AG, before that Hüls AG, established in Marl
(Germany), (Agent: F. Montag), (C-250/99 P), Enichem SpA,
established in Milan, (Agents: M. Siragusa and F. M. Moretti),
(C-251/99 P), Wacker-Chemie GmbH, established in Munich                  5.    Orders the appellants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
(Germany), Hoechst AG, established in Frankfurt am Main                        The costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
(Germany), (Agent: H. Hellmann), (C-252/99 P), Imperial                        leading to the judgment in Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij v
Chemical Industries plc (ICI), established in London (United                   Commission, cited above, are to be borne in accordance with
Kingdom), (Agents: D. Vaughan and D. Anderson, K. Bacon,                       point 5 of the operative part of that judgment.
barrister, and also by R. J. Coles and S. Turner, solicitors),
(C-254/99 P): Appeals against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 20 April 1999 in Joined Cases                   (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
T-305/94 to T-307/94, T-313/94 to T-316/94, T-318/94,
T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 Limburgse
Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-
931, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European