title: Case C-36/14: Action brought on 24 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/18

         Action brought on 24 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-36/14)
   2014/C 85/33
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Patakia, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by engaging in State intervention, unlimited in time, in such a way that (i) energy undertakings are obliged to apply prices for supplies of natural gas which have been approved by the president of the Energy Regulation Authority, although national law does not impose on the national administrative authorities any obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity and nature of the application of that intervention in the gas sector, having regard to the level of development of that sector, and (ii) that intervention is characterised by its application to an unlimited group of users, without any distinction being drawn according to customers and without any differentiation of the situation of individuals within the context of individual groups, the Republic of Poland is applying a measure which is disproportionate and incompatible with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) and, in this connection, has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 3(2), of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The obligation, laid down in Article 47 of the Polish Energy Law, failure to comply with which attracts a monetary fine, to obtain the approval of the president of the Energy Regulation Authority in respect of prices for supplies of natural gas constitutes, in so far as it applies to all energy undertakings for supplies to customers other than households, State intervention in the form of price regulation which is at variance with the requirements of the principle of proportionality and, in that connection, breaches Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/73/EC.
   The disputed State intervention fails to satisfy the standards laid down by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-265/08 Federutility and Others, as the national law in force (the Energy Law of 10 April 1997) provides for an obligation to apply regulated prices in a manner which goes beyond what is necessary for realisation of a general economic interest (protection against excessively high gas prices). In particular, the obligation to apply for authorisation of prices for natural gas supplies is not limited in time and is not subject to any examination of the situation prevalent on the gas market and justifying such an intervention. In addition, it is applied in the same way to all energy undertakings which have not been expressly exempted by the president of the Energy Regulation Authority, without their position on the gas market being taken into consideration and without any distinction being drawn according to the category of customer receiving the supplies: industrial end users, wholesale concerns and households are treated in the same way.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Case C-127/10: Action brought on 10 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/36

         Action brought on 10 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-127/10)
   2010/C 113/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/42/EC into national law expired on 29 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 157 of 9.6.2006, p. 24.


title: Case C-558/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 7 November 2011 — SIA ‘Kurcums metal’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 7 November 2011 — SIA ‘Kurcums metal’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-558/11)
   2012/C 13/16
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SIA ‘Kurcums metal’

      Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are cables made of polypropylene and steel thread such as those at issue in the present case included under subheading 5607 49 11 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?

               2.

               Is it necessary, in order to classify cables such as those at issue in the present case, to apply Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?

               3.

               If the composite cables, made of polypropylene and steel thread, whose maximum transversal section exceeds 3 mm, like those at issue in this case, are nevertheless included under subheading 7312 90 98 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, are such cables also covered by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (2) of 2 August 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey?

               4.

               Are corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin included in subheading 7317 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 211, p. 1.


title: Case-414/03: Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
15.11.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/39
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                     the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-416/03)
                             (Case-414/03)
                           (2003/C 275/59)                                                         (2003/C 275/60)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
ties on 2 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, a member of the
                                                                           represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
—     declare that by allowing a contract for the disposal of                    Directive 2001/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      waste entered into by the local authority for Friesland to                 of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      be awarded without the provisions relating to giving                       into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      notice provided for in Article 8 of Directive 92/50 (1) in                 and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, or in any
      conjunction with Titles III to VI of that Directive being                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      complied with, the Federal Republic of Germany has                         Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                     that directive;
—     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the defendant admitted to the alleged infringement
and claimed that it intended to award the contract for the
disposal of waste in a manner that complies with EU public                 The period within which the directive had to be implemented
procurement law in future, it took no steps to terminate the               in the national legal order expired on 17 October 2002.
current contract which remains in force up to 13 December
2004.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.
Nor does it even claim that it is possible for the contract to be
terminated under German law. It merely points to the fact that
to terminate the contract early could lead to claims for
damages. However, the effectiveness of Community public
procurement law is greatly enhanced precisely where con-
tracting authorities do in appropriate cases have to contend
with the possibility of paying out damages.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Nor can the obligation to bring infringements of Community                                              Belgium
public procurement law to an end by terminating contracts
already entered into be called in question by Article 2(6) of
Directive 89/665 (2) which relates to reviews of possible                                          (Case C-417/03)
infringements of Community public procurement law. An
infringement of the Treaty can be regarded as having been                                          (2003/C 275/61)
brought to an end only where the Member State has acknowl-
edged the wrongfulness of the conduct and the infringement
has also been fully brought to an end.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(2) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                       on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-83/15: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Swatch v EUIPO — L’atelier Wysiwyg (wysiwatch WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/53

         Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Swatch v EUIPO — L’atelier Wysiwyg (wysiwatch WhatYouSeeIsTheWatchYouGet)
   (Case T-83/15) (1)

   (2016/C 305/73)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-69/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission
   (Case T-69/00) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)
   (2006/C 48/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM) (Monteccchio Maggiore, Italy) and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies, Inc. (FIAMM Technologies) (East Haven, Delaware, United States) (represented by I. Van Bael, A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by G. Maganza, J. Huber, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and S. Marquardt, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Kuijper, L. Gussetti, V. Di Bucci, C. Brown and E. Righini, and subsequently by P. Kuijper, L. Gussetti, V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicants' stationary batteries, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the applicants to bear, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Side), by order of that court of 29 November 1995, in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Case C-29/96)

text:
No C 95/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             30 . 3 . 96
      medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                             Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ), by order of that court of 29 November 1995 ,
                                                                           in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against Ministry
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-29/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
those of Case C-18/96 ( 3 ).                                                                              ( 96/C 95/ 13 )
(') OJ No L 270, 26 . 9 . 1991 , p . 32,
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 1 .                                  European Communities by an order of the High Court of
(-') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .                                   Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ) of 29 November 1995 , which was received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 5 February 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against
                                                                           Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the
                                                                           following questions :
                                                                           1 . Are Council Directives 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
                                                                               1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Lansratten i                           States relating to veterinary medicinal products ( ! )
Jonkopings Lan by order of that court of 26 January 1996 in                    and 81 /852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
     the case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet                          approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                            ( Case C-27/96 )                                   to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical
                              ( 96/C 95/ 12 )
                                                                               standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
                                                                               veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                               Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 1 1 , 14 , 29-31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
                                                                               81 /851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                               81 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior
European Communities by an order of Lansratten i                               to any amendment) to be interpreted as permitting
Jonkopings Lan (Jonkoping County Administrative Court)                         the competent authority of a Member State, in
of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the Court                           circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
Registry on 30 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet ( Public
Attorney ) on the following questions :                                        ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
                                                                                authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
                                                                                product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to
1 . on a true construction of the Act of Accession of                                 be identified to the competent authority the names
       Sweden,     Finland       and     Austria ('),   in  particular                and addresses of any and all manufacturers of the
      Articles 137 ( 2 ), 145 ( 2 ) and 149 ( 1 ), are decisions taken                substance which the applicant intends to purchase
       at national level concerning levies on normal                                  for use as one of the active ingredients ('the Active
      transitional stocks of sugar as set out in the Swedish                          Ingredient') in the manufacture by the applicant
       Sugar Law, as amended, to be regarded as unlawful                              of the Product, and to supply or arrange to be
       transitional measures ?
                                                                                supplied to the competent authority details of
                                                                                the site(s ) where the Active Ingredient would be
      If not :                                                                        manufactured and of the manufacturing processes
                                                                                and control testing procedures used by the
                                                                                manufacturer of the Active Ingredient;
2 . on a true construction of the European Community
      organization of the market in sugar, in particular                       ( b ) to require the applicant ( whether by specific licence
      Articles 39 and 40 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation
                                                                                conditions or by withholding grant of a marketing
       ( EEC ) No 1785/81 (2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EC )                       authorization or otherwise ) either to comply with
      No 3300/94 ( 3 ), are decisions taken at national level
                                                                                the above requirements or to market the Product
      concerning levies on normal transitional stocks of sugar                        only using supplies of the Active Ingredient
      as set out in the Swedish Sugar Law, as amended, to be                          purchased from specified third parties;
      regarded as unlawful interference in the organization of
      the market ?
                                                                               ( c ) to suspend the time limits for a grant of a marketing
                                                                                authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive
( ] ) OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 .                                                   81 /851 /EEC until the applicant has agreed to
( 2 ) OJ No L 177 , 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .                                            supply the information referred to in ( a ) above ?
( 3 ) OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 39 .
                                                                           2 . Would it be material to the answers to questions 1 ( a ) to
                                                                               ( c ) above if it were not reasonably possible for an
                                                                               applicant to obtain any of the information referred to in
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 95/9
      question 1(a ), and if so what would be the effect on the                  References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal Superior
      answers to those questions ?                                               de Justicia of the Community of Extremadura by orders of
                                                                                that court of 17 January 1996 and 15 January 1996 in the
3 . ( a ) If the requests for further information and the other                  cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la
            requirements described in question 1 above, or any                   Seguridad Social, Francisco Mateos v. Instituto Nacional de
            of them, are prima facie permissible under Council                   la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad
            Directive 81 /851 /EEC and 81 /852/EEC, must such                    Social, and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v.
            requests and requirements comply with the                                                  Laura García Lázaro
            Community law principle of proportionality ?                                     ( Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 )
      ( b ) If the answer to ( a ) is affirmative, are those                                                 ( 96/C 95/ 14 )
            principles to be applied in this case by the national
            court or by the Court of Justice ?                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
      (c )    ( i ) If they are to be applied by the Court of                    de Justicia ( High Court of Justice ) of the Community of
                      Justice, do the said requests and requirements
                                                                                Extremadura of 17 January 1996 ( Cases C-31 /96 and
                      or any of them infringe the principles of                  C-32/96 ) and of 15 January 1996 ( Case C-33/96 ), which
                      proportionality ?                                          were received at the Court Registry on 7 February 1996 , for
                                                                                preliminary rulings in the cases of Antonio Naranjo Arjona
            ( ii ) If they are to be applied by the national court,
                                                                                v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( National Social
                      by reference to what criteria and
                                                                                Security Institute ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto
                      considerations must the proportionality of the
                                                                                Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la
                      requests and requirements be assessed ?
                                                                                Seguridad Social ( General Social Security Fund ), and
4 . Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted                     Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v. Laura Garcia
      as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those                     Lazaro on the following question :
      described above, or any of them ?
                                                                                when Article 47 ( 1 ) ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( J )
5 . ( a ) Is Article 40 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC to be                  — now Article 47 ( 1 ) (g ) — uses the phrase ' shall determine
            interpreted as applying to the requests and                          that average by reference only to those periods of insurance
            requirements described above ?                                       completed under the legislation of the said State ', is it to be
                                                                                construed as referring to :
      ( b ) If so, in what circumstances and by reference to
            what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of
            such requests and requirements to be treated as                      1 . the theoretical maximum, minimum or average basis for
            inadequate for the purposes of Article 40 , and were                      the time being laid down by the legislation of a Member
            such requests and requirements adequately                                 State for payment of the relevant social security
            reasoned in the present case ?                                           contributions; or
6 . ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community                      2 . the average of the actual bases of what was actually
            law to compensate an undertaking in damages for                          contributed by the person concerned, regardless of what
            loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the                        he would have had to contribute in the periods worked
            imposition of requests and requirements such as                           in Spain in accordance with the legislation of that
            those described above which :                                             State ?
                ( i ) are incompatible with the provisions of
                       Council    Directives   81 /851 /EEC           and/or     (') OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                       81 /852/EEC ;
              ( ii ) infringe the principles of proportionality;
            ( iii ) are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the EC
                       Treaty;
            ( iv ) are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                       of Article 40 of Directive 81 /851 /EEC ?                 Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                                order of that court of 24 January 1996 in criminal
      ( b ) If the answer to question 6(a ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) and ( iv ) or               proceedings against Maria Paolantoni
            any of them is in the affirmative, under what                                                   Case C-34/96 )
            condition does such liability arise ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/ 15 )
t 1 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 16 .                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                                Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 June 2002 in Case C-299/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division): Koninklĳke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 3(1) and (3), 5(1) and 6(1)(b) — Signs capable of being trade marks — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape of the product)

text:
10.8.2002             EN                          Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
                                                                          Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          judgment on 18 June 2002, in which it has ruled:
                        of 18 June 2002
in Case C-299/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                 1.  There is no category of marks which is not excluded from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):                       registration by Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (d) and Article 3(3) of
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Con-                           First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                    sumer Products Ltd (1)                                    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
                                                                              marks which is none the less excluded from registration by
                                                                              Article 3(1)(a) thereof on the ground that such marks are
                                                                              incapable of distinguishing the goods of the proprietor of the
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/                          mark from those of other undertakings.
104/EEC — Articles 3(1) and (3), 5(1) and 6(1)(b) — Signs
capable of being trade marks — Signs consisting exclusively
                  of the shape of the product)
                                                                          2.  In order to be capable of distinguishing an article for the
                                                                              purposes of Article 2 of the Directive, the shape of the article in
                        (2002/C 191/01)                                       respect of which the sign is registered does not require any
                                                                              capricious addition, such as an embellishment which has no
                                                                              functional purpose.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          3.  Where a trader has been the only supplier of particular goods
                                                                              to the market, extensive use of a sign which consists of the
                                                                              shape of those goods may be sufficient to give the sign a
                                                                              distinctive character for the purposes of Article 3(3) of Directive
In Case C-299/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    89/104 in circumstances where, as a result of that use, a
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)                substantial proportion of the relevant class of persons associates
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  that shape with that trader and no other undertaking or believes
pending before that court between Koninklijke Philips Elec-                   that goods of that shape come from that trader. However, it is
tronics NV and Remington Consumer Products Ltd, on the                        for the national court to verify that the circumstances in which
interpretation of Articles 3(1) and (3), 5(1) and 6(1)(b) of First            the requirement under that provision is satisfied are shown to
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                           exist on the basis of specific and reliable data, that the presumed
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                   expectations of an average consumer of the category of goods or
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                           services in question, who is reasonably well-informed and
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken (Rappor-              reasonably observant and circumspect, are taken into account
teur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers),                  and that the identification, by the relevant class of persons, of
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                   the product as originating from a given undertaking is as a
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                           result of the use of the mark as a trade mark.
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/2                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.8.2002
4.   Article 3(1)(e), second indent, of Directive 89/104 must be           milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as
     interpreted to mean that a sign consisting exclusively of the         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1560/93 of 14 June
     shape of a product is unregistrable by virtue thereof if it is        1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 30), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
     established that the essential functional features of that shape      composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
     are attributable only to the technical result. Moreover, the          acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann and
     ground for refusal or invalidity of registration imposed by that      V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
     provision cannot be overcome by establishing that there are           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
     other shapes which allow the same technical result to be              has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in which it has ruled:
     obtained.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                1.   When Member States determine, pursuant to the first subpara-
                                                                                graph of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/
                                                                                92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in
                                                                                the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1506/93 of 14 June 1993, the detailed
                                                                                rules under which the reference quantity attached to a holding
                                                                                is to be transferred upon the sale or lease of the holding, they
                                                                                may provide, pursuant to that provision, that part of the
                                                                                reference quantity is not to be transferred with the holding to
                                                                                the producer taking it over but is to be added to the national
                                                                                reserve by means of a ‘clawback’ mechanism. Such a measure
                                                                                must be adopted and applied:
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                —     in a way which does not compromise the objectives of the
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                               common agricultural policy and in particular those of the
                                                                                common organisation of the markets in the milk sector;
                         of 20 June 2002
                                                                                —     on the basis of objective criteria, and
in Case C-313/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court): Gerard Mulligan, Tim O’Sullivan, Tom                           —     in accordance with the general principles of Community
Power, Hugh Duncan v Minister for Agriculture and                                     law such as, in particular, the principles of legal certainty
              Food, Ireland, Attorney General (1)                                     and protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality,
                                                                                non-discrimination and respect for fundamental rights.
(Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector —
Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Transfer of the reference
                                                                           2.   The principle of legal certainty does not preclude, as a general
quantity on sale or lease of the holding — Whether a                            principle of Community law, a Member State from choosing,
Member State may claw back part of the reference quantity
                                                                                for the purpose of adopting national measures pursuant to
               and add it to the national reserve)
                                                                                Article 7(1) of Regulation No 3950/92, a procedure whereby
                                                                                a legislative instrument authorises the competent authority,
                                                                                such as a minister, to adopt those measures by means of a
                         (2002/C 191/02)                                        decision. That principle requires that the publicity for such
                                                                                measures be of such a nature as to inform the natural or legal
                                                                                persons concerned by the measures of their rights and obligations
                                                                                under them. It is for the national court to determine, on the
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                basis of the facts before it, whether that is the case in the main
                                                                                proceedings.
In Case C-313/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
EC by the High Court (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Gerard
Mulligan, Tim O’Sullivan, Tom Power, Hugh Duncan and
Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ireland, Attorney General,
on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92
of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the


title: Case T-127/00: Action brought on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/31
— illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                 It should be pointed out that the Commission rejected the
     17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for           Community Producers’ complaint on the ground that the
     certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,                    complaint was inadmissible, essentially by virtue of Article 27
     1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating                 of Regulation No 2820/98, which provides that ‘Preferences
     products (3), as a result of which Article 2(2) of the              shall normally be granted to producers which are subject to ...
     safeguard measure, which states that the provisions of              anti-subsidy measures’.
     Regulation No 2553/97 are to apply mutatis mutandis, is
     unlawful.
                                                                         In support of their action, the applicants make the following
                                                                         submissions:
(1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, as last amended by Decision 2000/168/EC.
(3) OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26.
                                                                         The contested decision is unlawful in that it is contrary to
                                                                         Community secondary legislation. Regulation No 2820/98
                                                                         does not provide that the existence of anti-subsidy measures
                                                                         precludes the opening of an investigation into the removal of
                                                                         GSP benefits. It provides that GSP benefits are not normally
                                                                         incompatible with anti-subsidy or anti-dumping measures but
                                                                         that those benefits can be withdrawn in manifest cases of
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin Films                      subsidisation or other unfair trading practices. The contested
Luxembourg S.A., Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and                      decision, according to which benefits can never be withdrawn
Toray Plastics Europe S.A. against the Commission of the                 if anti-subsidy measures are in place, is therefore based upon a
                    European Communities                                 misinterpretation of Regulation No 2820/98. The Community
                                                                         Producers’ interpretation of this regulation is also consistent
                                                                         with trade policy, in that it would enable the Commission to
                         (Case T-113/00)                                 examine the possibility of withdrawing benefits from a trading
                                                                         partner who was persistently or grossly infringing international
                         (2000/C 176/54)                                 obligations or WTO rules.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       The Commission has failed to provide adequate reasoning for
                                                                         its decision rejecting the Community Producers’ complaint.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin                      (1) OJ L 357 of 30.12.1998, p. 1.
Films Luxembourg S.A. (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
Film GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) and Toray Plastics Europe
S.A. (Miribel Cedex, France), represented by Mr. Ian S. Forrester
QC and Mr. James Killick, of White & Case LLP, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision;
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                         Action brought on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin against
— take such other or further steps as justice may require.                      the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-127/00)
On 17 September 1998 the Community producers requested                                            (2000/C 176/55)
the European Commission to investigate whether it was
appropriate to remove General System of Preferences (GSP)
tariff benefits from Indian polyethylene terephthalate film
(‘PET’ film), on the grounds that the subsidies being paid to                               (Language of the case: French)
Indian PET film producers constituted a ‘manifest case of
unfair trading practices’ under the current Article 22 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, of 21 December 1998,                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (1). The                  European Communities on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin,
present action is brought by the three major producers of PET            residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
film in Europe against the rejection of that request.                    of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/32                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            were concluded in breach of the Code of Conduct governing
                                                                       the Commission’s relations with interim staff. It follows
— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 April 1999 refusing             that those contracts must be reclassified as contracts of
     to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;                employment with the Commission of indeterminate duration.
— order the Commission to pay the expatriation allowance               In the alternative, the applicant maintains that the concept of
     to the applicant from 1 April 1999, together with default         work done for an international organisation within the
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum;                            meaning of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                       does not require the existence of a direct contractual link with
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                       the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, principally, infringement of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. He maintains that the work
done by him as a member of the Commission’s interim                           Removal from the register of Case T-289/97 (1)
staff must be regarded as work done for an international
organisation within the meaning of the final sentence of Article                               (2000/C 176/56)
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is therefore
necessary, for the purposes of calculating the period for which
the applicant worked in the country of employment prior to                                (Language of the case: French)
taking up his duties, to disregard the periods during which he
worked on an interim basis. It follows that the applicant was          By order of 9 March 2000 B. Vesterdorf, sitting as a single
entitled to receive an expatriation allowance.                         Judge, has ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       T-289/97: Peter Cain v Commission of the European Com-
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the     munities.
existence of numerous legal links between him and the
Commission. In addition, his contracts as an interim worker            (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.


title: Case C-69/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2012 by Noscira, SA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 November 2011 in Case T-307/11: Noscira, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/3

         Appeal brought on 10 February 2012 by Noscira, SA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 November 2011 in Case T-307/11: Noscira, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-69/12 P)
   2012/C 389/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Noscira, SA (represented by: A. Sirimarco, advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 21 September 2012 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case C-384/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Telecommunications — Interconnection of networks — Interoperability of services — Provision of universal service)

text:
C 95/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           24.3.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    Where a Member State is obliged to take into account, in
                                                                                calculating the pay of contractual teachers and teaching
                                                                                assistants, periods of employment in certain institutions in other
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         Member States comparable to the Austrian institutions listed
                                                                                in Paragraph 26(2) of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948,
                       of 30 November 2000                                         such period must be taken into account without any temporal
                                                                                limitation.
in Case C-195/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Österreichischer Gewerk-                         (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
schaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik
                             Österreich (1)
(Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment —
            Seniority — Part of career spent abroad)
                            (2001/C 95/02)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                     (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 November 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-384/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
In Case C-195/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) Austria, for a preliminary ruling                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in the proceedings pending before that court between Öster-                 Telecommunications — Interconnection of networks —
reichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher                     Interoperability of services — Provision of universal service)
Dienst and Republik Österreich — on the interpretation of
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
EC) and Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) and                                           (2001/C 95/03)
Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968
(II), p. 475) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                           (Language of the case: French)
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 30 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    In exercising functions such as those provided for by Para-
      graph 54(2) to (5) of the Arbeits- und Sozialgerichtsgesetz            In Case C-384/99: Commission of the European Communities
      (Law on Labour and Social Courts), the Oberster Gerichtshof            (Agent: B. Doherty) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx)
      constitutes a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177      — application for a declaration that, by failing correctly to
      of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC).                                 implement Article 5 of Directive 97/33/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on intercon-
2.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39          nection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring uni-
      EC) and 7(1) and (4), of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                versal service and interoperability through application of the
      the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for              principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199,
      workers within the Community preclude a national rule such as          p. 32), in conjunction with Annex I thereto, and by failing to
      Paragraph 26 of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (Federal           adopt all the measures necessary to implement Article 5 of
      Law on Contractual Public Servants of 1948) concerning the             that directive, in conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto,
      account to be taken of previous periods of service for the             the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      purposes of determining the pay of contractual teachers and            under those provisions and under the EC Treaty — the Court
      teaching assistants, where the requirements which apply to             (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      periods spent in other Member States are stricter than those           President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,
      applicable to periods spent in comparable institutions of the          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      Member State concerned.                                                given a judgment on 30 November 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.3.2001               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 95/3
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed    and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — the
      period the laws, regulations and administrative measures               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
      necessary to comply with Article 5 of Directive 97/33/EC of            President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997             the Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges;
      on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to                N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
      ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-         the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
      cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), in           which it has ruled:
      conjunction with Annexes I and III thereto, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                             1.   —      Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordin-
                                                                                ating the procurement procedures of entities operating in
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                                the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                                sectors covers a contract for pecuniary interest concluded
                                                                                in writing between, on the one hand, an undertaking
(1) JO C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                                  which is specifically responsible under the legislation of a
                                                                                Member State for operating a telecommunications service
                                                                                and whose capital is wholly held by the public authorities
                                                                                of that State and, on the other, a private undertaking,
                                                                                where under that contract the first undertaking entrusts
                                                                                the second with the production and publication, for the
                                                                                purpose of distribution to the public, of printed and
                                                                                electronically accessible lists of telephone subscribers (tele-
                                                                                phone directories);
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                —      although it is covered by Directive 93/38, such a contract
                                                                                is excluded, under Community law as it stands at present,
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                from the scope of that directive by reason of the fact, in
                                                                                particular, that the consideration provided by the first
                       of 7 December 2000                                                undertaking to the second consists in the second obtaining
                                                                                the right to exploit for payment its own service.
in Case C-324/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Telaustria Verlags GmbH,                         2.   Notwithstanding the fact that, as Community law stands at
Telefonadress GmbH v Telekom Austria AG, formerly                                 present, such contracts are excluded from the scope of Directive
                 Post & Telekom Austria AG (1)                                    93/38, the contracting entities concluding them are, none the
                                                                                less, bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty,
                                                                                in general, and the principle of non-discrimination on the
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public
                                                                                ground of nationality, in particular, that principle implying, in
service contracts in the telecommunications sector — Direc-
                                                                                particular, an obligation of transparency in order to enable the
          tive 93/38/EEC — Public service concession)
                                                                                contracting authority to satisfy itself that the principle has been
                                                                                complied with.
                           (2001/C 95/04)
                                                                             3.   That obligation of transparency which is imposed on the
                                                                                contracting authority consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any
                   (Language of the case: German)                                 potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable
                                                                                the services market to be opened up to competition and the
                                                                                impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             4.   It is for the national court to rule on the question whether that
                                                                                obligation was complied with in the case in the main proceedings
In Case C-324/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                     and also to assess the materiality of the evidence produced to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-                          that effect.
beamt (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Telaustria Verlags GmbH, Telefonadress GmbH and Telekom
Austria AG, formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG, joined
party; Herold Business Data AG — on the interpretation of                    (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and of Council Directive
93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement
procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport


title: Case T-5/09: Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Lind v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/45

         Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Lind v Commission
   (Case T-5/09)
   (2009/C 69/99)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Brigit Lind (Greve, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, individually, the sum of 50 000 EUR, or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable, for shock and distress experienced by her from her brother's suffering and wrongful death as result of the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring provisions of Directive 96/29 in the case of the former workers who participated in the radiological emergency at Thule;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the estate of John Erling Nochen, as represented by the applicant, the sum of 250 000 EUR, or such other sum as the Court may consider just and equitable, for pain and suffering, including the awareness of the curtailment of life, from 2006 until his death in 2008, as result of the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring provisions of Directive 96/29 in the case of the former workers who participated in the radiological emergency at Thule and the sum of 6 000 EUR, for funeral expenses;

               —

               order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in bringing the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages she claims to have incurred from her brother's death allegedly caused by illegal refusal by the Commission to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parliament (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (2) to the case of workers, including the applicant's brother, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule, Greenland.

      (1)  European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (Petition 720/2002) [2006/2012(INI)].

      (2)  OJ L 159, p. 1.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2001 in Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial assistance — Urgency — None)

text:
C 44/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 22 October 2001
                                                                            in Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                              i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim relief — Fumus boni juris —
                                                                            Urgency — Withdrawal of Community financial assistance)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/31)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      of 12 September 2001
                                                                            In Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                            i Serveis, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by
in Case T-139/01 R Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                       M.C. Belard-Kopke Marques-Pinto, lawyer, with an address for
Europe Ltd. & Co. v Commission of the European                              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                            Communities                                     Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and S. Pardo Quintillán) —
                                                                            application for suspension of the operation of Commission
                                                                            Decision C(1999) 534 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Com-
(Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana                    munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility —                    First Instance made an order on 22 October 2001, the
Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    nature of the relief sought)
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                           (2002/C 44/30)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-139/01 R: Comafrica SpA, having its registered                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
office in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co,                                           INSTANCE
having its registered office in Hamburg (Germany), represented
by Mr. B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and Mr. P.B.G. Martin, Barrister,                                    of 18 October 2001
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
X. Lewis and C. Van der Hauwaert) — application for                         in Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessaloni-
suspension of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                          kis v Commission of the European Communities
7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for
                                                                            (Interlocutory proceedings — EAGGF — Withdrawal of
importing bananas into the Community and Commission
                                                                                financial assistance — Urgency — None)
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the
adjustment coefficient to be applied to each traditional oper-
ator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of                                       (2002/C 44/32)
bananas — the President of the Court of First Instance has
made an order on 12 September 2001, the operative part of                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
which is as follows:
                                                                            In Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      represented by D. Nikopoulos, lawyer, v Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) —
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s
                                                                            decision C(2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001 withdrawing Com-
                                                                            munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 18 October 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/17
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  The applicant argues that the remission application should be
                                                                          granted, not least because the Commission did not give a
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             decision within the nine-month time-limit prescribed by
                                                                          Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code.
                                                                          The applicant further claims that it has been the victim of
                                                                          organised crime and that the theft of the lorry occurred in
                                                                          ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 239 of
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG
                                                                              down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                              (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                          (Case T-282/01)                                 (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                           (2002/C 44/33)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans
AG, established at Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represent-           Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización
ed by J. Weigell, lawyer.                                                 de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-283/01)
—     annul the Commission’s decision (REM 19/00) of 18 July
      2001 finding the remission of import duty by the Federal                                      (2002/C 44/34)
      Republic of Germany to the applicant to be unjustified,
      and authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant
      to Article 908(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), to                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      remit to the applicant, in accordance with its application
      of 28 May 1998, duty already paid in the sum of
      DEM 395 392,01;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 November 2001 by Organiza-
                                                                          ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                          office is at Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Garcia-Gallardo and Javier Guillén Carrau, lawyers.
In May 1997 the applicant despatched, at a principal customs
office in Belgium, 12 110 000 cigarettes under the external               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community transit procedure for transportation from
Antwerp to Montenegro, the customs office of destination
                                                                          —     declare the present application admissible;
being in Austria. During a stop at a motorway rest area, the
lorry and the consignment which it was carrying were
stolen; the lorry driver reported the theft immediately at the            —     annul the act which is the subject of the present
competent police headquarters.                                                  application, by which the European Commission has
                                                                                reduced the quantities eligible for compensatory allow-
                                                                                ance in respect of OPTUC, namely, Article 2(2) of and the
The parties are in dispute concerning the question whether, on                  annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2001 of
the facts, the defendant is obliged, pursuant to Article 239 of                 20 August 2001 providing for compensation to producer
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), to authorise the Federal                       organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry
Republic of Germany to remit the customs duties already paid.                   between 1 October and 31 December 2000 (1);


title: Case T-481/08: Action brought on 5 November 2008 — Alisei v Commission

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/40

         Action brought on 5 November 2008 — Alisei v Commission
   (Case T-481/08)
   (2009/C 6/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Alisei NGO (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, S. Gobbato, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision D (2007) 8449 of 19 August 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission to compensate for the loss suffered;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a non-governmental organisation active in the field of international cooperation for development and humanitarian assistance, challenges the Commission's decision confirming that the procedure initiated in June 2006, concerning the accounting verification of a selection of contracts concluded with the applicant, was in order. The Commission had also provided the applicant with the final report from Ernst & Young, informing it that that report was a reliable technical basis for taking the necessary measures, in particular the launching of a recovery procedure for a total amount of EUR 4 750 121.
   The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its action:

               —

               infringement of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action, in that the applicant was subjected to an administrative procedure the nature and rules for implementation of which were quite specific, only to discover subsequently that that procedure in reality had a purpose and was conducted in a manner quite different from what had been communicated to it. In particular, the defendant decided, first of all, to initiate an accounting verification procedure to be carried out through an audit, before accepting the findings obtained through a different verification procedure, a ‘amicable procedure’, of which the applicant was never informed.

               —

               infringement of the provisions governing limitations, in that the decision orders, without distinction, the recovery of amounts which should not have been claimed because the defendant's right to demand repayment of those amounts had been extinguished.

         The applicant also alleges infringement of its rights of defence, and of the principle of proportionality.
   Lastly, it asks that the Commission be ordered to compensate for the loss suffered.


title: Case T-48/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2009 — Fusco v OHIM — Fusco International (FUSCOLLECTION)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2009 — Fusco v OHIM — Fusco International (FUSCOLLECTION)
   (Case T-48/08) (1)

   2009/C 233/42

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-11/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV
   (Case C-11/10)
   2010/C 80/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: Marishipping and Transport BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the exemption of pharmaceutical substances from customs duties laid down in Part One, Section II, Part C (i), of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987, in conjunction with the list of pharmaceutical substances contained in Part Three (annexes), Section II, Annex 3, restricted to the pure form of the (chemical) substances referred to?

               2.

               If other substances may be added to the pharmaceutical substances indicated, what restrictions should apply in that regard?

      (1)  Regulation on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case T-542/13: Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/67

         Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-542/13)
   2013/C 344/123
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2).

      (1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

      (2)  See the communication of the Commission ‘A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007) 502 final).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-383/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 1999/105/EC — Marketing of forest reproductive material — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-383/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 1999/105/EC - Marketing of forest reproductive material - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 106/17)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-383/04: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 September 2004, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes) and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of Chamber, R. Schintgen and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/105/EC of 22 December 1999 on the marketing of forest reproductive material the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.