title: Case C-76/01 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom

text:
C 108/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.4.2001
            —     annul the express rejection of the complaint           Pleas in law and main arguments
                  lodged by the appellant on 18 May 1998,
                  notified to him by registered letter of
                                                                         The Member States are required by the binding character of
                  10 December 1998;
                                                                         the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                         paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
      (c)   order, in any event, the defendant to pay all the            adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
            costs both at first instance and in the present appeal.      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                         the Commission. That time-limit expired on 30 October
                                                                         1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
                                                                         Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Pleas and main arguments                                                 tion into national law.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice, given that the obligation to
provide reasons implies, in particular, that the grounds relied
on are admissible in law, that is to say adequate, relevant, free
of errors of law and fact and consistent.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of
                                                                         the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European
                                                                         Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment
                                                                         delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in case T-213/97 (1) between
                                                                         Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
                                                                         the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council
                                                                           of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom
Action brought on 13 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                  lic                                                            (Case C-76/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/15)
                           (Case C-64/01)
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 November
                          (2001/C 108/14)                                2009 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
                                                                         T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile
                                                                         Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 Febru-            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,              Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on              (Eurocoton), established in Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesell-
secondment to its Legal Service.                                         schaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG, established in Ettlingen,
                                                                         Germany, Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co. KG, established in
                                                                         Hof, Germany, H. Hecking Söhne GmbH & Co., established in
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Stadtlohn, Germany, Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, estab-
                                                                         lished in Uhingen, Germany, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co.,
                                                                         established in Rheine, Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             Eloyes, France, Les Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin —
      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             Groupe Alain Thirion (HPG-GAT Tissages), established in
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             Comimont, France, Établissements des Fils de Victor Perrin
      comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 Sep-            SARL, established in Thiéfosse, France, Filatures et Tissages de
      tember 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution preven-            Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselot-
      tion and control, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil       te, France, Tissage Mouline Thillot, established in Thillot,
      its obligations under the EC Treaty;                               France, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo,
                                                                         Italy, Standardtela SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented
                                                                         by Clive Stanbrook QC and Philip Bentley QC, with an address
2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/11
The Appellant claims that:                                               —     it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                               Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
                                                                               of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
—     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-                 Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
      ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it                    reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
      applies to the Appellants;                                               the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
                                                                               the Basic Regulation.
—     the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a             (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
      regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
      Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
      Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
      annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
—     the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage              di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
      in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-              brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
      nation of the amount of compensation referred back to                                    SA and ADP GSI SA
      the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                (Case C-79/01)
—     the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both
      in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.                                            (2001/C 108/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
                                                                         Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
                                                                         Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
                                                                         following question:
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed         Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
Community law in the following ways:                                     applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
                                                                         amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                         regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230         extent to which it prohibits, in absolute terms, external
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as           undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
      read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of          and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
      the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the                      undertakings having less than 250 employees?
      general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
      Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
      meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 230 EC);
—     it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
      Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the            stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
      Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants            in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes
      had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;
                                                                                (Case C-80/01)
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as                                     (2001/C 108/17)
      read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
      GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided               European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
      for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not               by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
      constitute a decision by the Council which could be the            Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
      subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article         16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
      173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and                     Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question:


title: Case C-320/99: Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 299/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down             Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down
by Article 8 of the directive expired on 23 August 1996 but               by Article 17 of the directive expired on 30 June 1998 but
France has not adopted the necessary measures.                            France has not adopted the necessary measures.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 59 of 27.2.1998, p. 1.
(1) Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council      (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
    of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the transmission
    of television signals (OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51).
(2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-332/99)
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission                                                 (1999/C 299/25)
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                           (Case C-320/99)                                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                           (1999/C 299/24)                                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              The Commission claims that the Court should,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. Declare that, by not communicating or by not adopting
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office                 administrative provisions necessary for it to comply with
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         Article 1 points 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of Council Directive
                                                                               93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending for the sixth time
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                               the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), the
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                    French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative                       the Treaty.
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive                 2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws
     of the Member States relating to measures against the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
     internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
     mobile machinery (1), alternatively by failing in any event          Case C-316/99 (2). The time-limit for implementation laid
     to communicate those measures to the Commission, the                 down by Article 3 of Directive 93/35/EEC expired on 11 June
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under           1995.
     that directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ L 151 of 23 June 1993, p. 32.
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.


C 158/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
—      Infringement of Directive 91/414 (2) and Regulation                         Removal from the register of Case T-297/00 (1)
       No 3600/92 ( 3), in so far as the Commission requires that
       each of the notifying parties submit a complete dossier                                     (2003/C 158/51)
       when presenting a notification collectively with other
       notifiers of active substances and send such complete                                  (Language of the case: French)
       dossier to the defendant within the time-limit referred to
       in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3600/92. It is also
       contrary to that provision for the defendant institution to
                                                                           By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber,
       assume that the applicant is not able to submit data
                                                                           Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
       relating to the evaluation of metalaxyl. The applicant
                                                                           European Communities ordered the removal from the register
       company therefore takes the view that the contested
                                                                           of Case T-297/00: Company Claude-Anne de Solène v Council
       decision contradicts the interpretation made by the
                                                                           of the European Union and Commission of the European
       Commission itself concerning use of the studies provided
                                                                           Communities.
       by Syngenta in the drawing up of the report by the
       rapporteur Member State.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 355, 09.12.2000.
—      Infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this
       regard, the applicant would point out, in particular, the
       fact that the effect of the contested decision consists in
       excluding it from the European market when its scientific
       analysis has not even been completed.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/01 (1)
—      Misuse of powers, inasmuch as, in the applicant’s view,
       the purpose of the Commission is none other than to
       favour an undertaking which is its direct competitor.                                       (2003/C 158/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8.
( 2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
     placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
     L 230, p. 1).                                                         By order of 31 March 2003 the Court of        First Instance of the
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992            European Communities (Sole Judge: R.           M. Moura Ramos)
     laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first    ordered the removal from the register          of Case T-159/01:
     stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of        Christopher Wilkinson v Commission of         the European Com-
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant          munities.
     protection products on the market (OJ 1992 L 366, p. 10).
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 275, 29.09.2001.


title: Case C-415/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Cartels — European market in phosphates for animal feed — Fine imposed on the appellants following a settlement procedure — Payment of the fine in instalments — Requirement to provide a bank guarantee at a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-415/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cartels - European market in phosphates for animal feed - Fine imposed on the appellants following a settlement procedure - Payment of the fine in instalments - Requirement to provide a bank guarantee at a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating - Duty to state reasons))
   (2016/C 106/08)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellants: Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2015 in Quimitéchnica.com and José de Mello v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the matter back before the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case C-298/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Columbus Container Services B.V.B.A. & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Columbus Container Services B.V.B.A. & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt
   (Case C-298/05)
   (2005/C 271/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münster of 5 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Columbus Container Services B.V.B.A. & Co. and Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt on the following question:
   Is it contrary to the provisions of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) and Article 73(b) to 73(d) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 58 EC) for the legislation contained in Paragraph 20(2) and (3) of the Außensteuergesetz (Foreign Transaction Tax Law, hereinafter: the ‘AStG’) as amended by the Missbrauchsbekämpfungs- und Steuerbereinigungsgesetz (Law combating abuse and streamlining taxation) of 21 December 1993 (BGBl 1993 I, p. 2310) to exempt from double taxation the designated passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party with unlimited liability to tax in Germany, which would be liable to tax as controlled-foreign-corporation (CFC) income if the permanent establishment were a foreign corporation, by offsetting the foreign tax on earnings levied on the income rather than by exempting the income from taxation in Germany contrary to the double taxation convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium of 11 April 1967?


title: Case T-264/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/24

         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission
   (Case T-264/16)
   (2016/C 287/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corp. (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case and that there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.


title: Case C-266/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Evonik Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa GmbH v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Cartel — Market in methionine — Fine — Regulation No 17/62 — Article 15(2) — Nulla poena sine lege — Distortion of the facts — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Evonik Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa GmbH v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Cartel - Market in methionine - Fine - Regulation No 17/62 - Article 15(2) - Nulla poena sine lege - Distortion of the facts - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2008/C 171/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Evonik Degussa GmbH, formerly Degussa GmbH (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, W. Mölls, Agents, and H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt) and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, G. Curmi and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission, in which the Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) — Cartel concerning the market in methionine — Requirements of the nulla poena sine lege principle in relation to the system of fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Evonik Degussa GmbH is ordered to bear the costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.


title: Case C-547/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decisions 2006/323/EC and 2007/375/EC — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia — Recovery — Decisions to suspend the enforcement of a demand for payment taken by a national court)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/2

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-547/11) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Decisions 2006/323/EC and 2007/375/EC - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia - Recovery - Decisions to suspend the enforcement of a demand for payment taken by a national court))
   2014/C 253/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and F. Varrone, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006, L 119, p. 12) and Articles 4 and 6 of Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ L 2007 L 147, p. 29) — Infringement of Article 288 TFEU and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Requirement of immediate and effective enforcement of the Commission’s decisions — Inadequacy of the procedures for the recovery of the unlawful aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy and Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively [C 78/2001 (ex NN 22/01), C 79/2001 (ex NN 23/01), C 80/2001 (ex NN 26/01)], the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 of Decision 2006/323, Article 4 of Decision 2007/375 and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.
               By failing to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information referred to in Article 6(1) of Decision 2006/323 and Article 6(2) of Decision 2007/375, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under both those provisions and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012


title: Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-509/93 between Richco Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-404/96 P)

text:
8 . 3 . 97             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/11
Is Article 5 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2137/85            Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain
of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest                      Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the
Grouping ( EEIG ) O to be interpreted as meaning that,                 judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of
apart from the additions of 'European Economic Interest                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Grouping' or 'EEIG', the name or business name of an                   T-509/93     between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
EEIG may consist of a purely descriptive designation, even                      Commission of the European Communities
where internal law in principle precludes the use of such a                                     ( Case C-404/96 P)
name for the formation of a European Economic Interest
                                                                                97/C 74/21 )
Grouping ?
H OJ No L 199, 31 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                       1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities       in       Case      T-509/93  between   Richco
                                                                       Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
                                                                       Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,
Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain                   represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.
Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the                      Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                      11 rue Goethe .
T-491 /93 between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
           Commission of the European Communities                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
                       ( Case C-403/96 P)
                                                                       — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First
                           ( 97/C 74/20 )                                   Instance in Case T-509/93 , in so far as that judgment
                                                                            declares inadmissible Glencore's application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                   1993 addressed to the SEIB under reference SG ( 93 )
 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                        D/ 11703 ,
 Communities        in   Case     T-491 /93   between     Richco
 Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European                     — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     indent above, admissible,
 the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
 Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,                   — order the Commission to pay all the costs, including
 represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.                 those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
 Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                        First Instance .
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
 11 rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Case C-386/96 P (').
 — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .
       Instance in Case T-491 /93 , in so far as that judgment
       declares inadmissible Glencore 's application for
       annulment of the decision or at least the act of the
       Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
       Vnesheconombank under reference SG ( 93 ) D/5397,
                                                                        Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Sveriges
                                                                        Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
 — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first             against the order made on 4 October 1996 by the First
       indent above, admissible,                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-l 97/95 between Sveriges
 — order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-409/96 P)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/22 )
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  Case C-386/96 P ( M.                                                   An appeal against the order made on 4 October 1996 by
                                                                         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European     Communities           in  Case T-l 97/95  between
  H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .                                   Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
                                                                         Henrikson and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of


title: Case F-121/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Michael Heath v ECB (Civil Service — ECB Staff — Pension scheme — Pension plan — Annual pension increase — Harmonised index of consumer prices — Opinion of pension plan actuary — Consultation of staff committee — Consultation of oversight committee — Right to negotiate by collective agreement)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Michael Heath v ECB
   (Case F-121/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - ECB Staff - Pension scheme - Pension plan - Annual pension increase - Harmonised index of consumer prices - Opinion of pension plan actuary - Consultation of staff committee - Consultation of oversight committee - Right to negotiate by collective agreement)
   2012/C 138/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Heath (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: P. Embley and E. Carlini, agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s pension slips for January 2010 and the following months, in so far as they apply a pension increase of 0.6% following the 2010 pension adjustment exercise, and compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Heath to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 67.


title: Case C-435/99: Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 34/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
may not, without infringing the directive, adopt legal pro-                 Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Com-
visions which prohibit such a service. Article 47(1)(a) of                  mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
Decree-Law No 240/97 is therefore contrary to the directive                                          guese Republic
in so far as it prohibits the provision of ‘call-back’ services.
                                                                                (Case C-435/99)
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
     tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L                                (2000/C 34/23)
     192, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
     Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996 L 74,               the Court of Justice on 12 November 1999 by the Commission
     p. 13).                                                                of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström,
                                                                            Legal Adviser, and António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,
                                                                            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                            (a) Declare that, by not forwarding to the Commission the
                                                                                reports needed to comply with:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by
orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 Octo-                          — Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of
ber 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against                             4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA                                  substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
(formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio                                   the Community;
                Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento
                                                                                — Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC (2) of
                                                                                20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide
                   (Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99)                                    industry, as amended by Directive 83/29/EEC (3);
                            (2000/C 34/22)                                      — Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC (4) of
                                                                                18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
                                                                                protection or improvement in order to support fish
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              life, as amended by the 1985 Act of Accession;
European Communities by orders of the Commissione Tributa-
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1999                           — Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC (5) of
and 14 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on                              17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
11 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of                          against pollution caused by certain dangerous sub-
(1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di                           stances;
Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA)
against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento on the                       — Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
following question:                                                                 Council Directive 82/176/EEC(6) of 22 March 1982
                                                                                on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
                                                                                discharges by the chlor-alkali;
‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                             — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC (7)
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the taxable                           of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality
base of the tax on net assets consisting of a company’s capital                     objectives for cadmium discharges;
disclosed annually by the balance sheet which has already
borne the tax on contributions of 1 %?’                                         — Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC (8) of
                                                                                8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
                                                                                for mercury discharges by sectors other than the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).                                 chlor-alkali electrolysis industry;
                                                                                — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC (9)
                                                                                of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objec-
                                                                                tives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/13
     — Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         86/280/EEC (10) of 12 June 1986 on limit values and            on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer, represented by
         quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous         Jean-Dominique des Arcis, with an address for service in
         substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive        Luxembourg at the office of Mr Pakowski, Ambassador of the
         76/464/EEC, as last amended by Directive                       Federal Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
         90/415/EEC (11),
     having regard to the wording of those provisions inserted          The appellant claims that the Court should:
     by Article 2(1) of Directive 91/692/EEC (12), the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            — Declare all his claims admissible and well founded;
     abovementioned directives or under the first paragraph of
     Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the           — Hold that the Commission’s fax of 30 March 1999 is an
     EC Treaty;                                                             act against which an action may be brought, corresponding
                                                                            to a measure affecting the legal situation of the applicant
(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         as a private European investor in French Polynesia;
                                                                        — Remit the case to the Court of First Instance for the
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                      procedure on the substance to be continued.
By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States are            Pleas in law and main arguments
to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of acts adopted by the Community
institutions and facilitate the achievement of the Community’s          Breach of Community law: The contested act was the final act
tasks, and they are required to achieve the results pursued by          of an enquiry procedure for finding out the Community
directives within the periods appointed by those directives. In         provisions and information on the conditions of Community
the present case, the Commission finds that, even though                financing, concerning the applicant’s investment in a tropical
the appointed period expired on 30 September 1995, the                  fruit plantation in Polynesia. The Court of First Instance
Portuguese Republic has still not forwarded to it the reports           wrongly declined to regard the Commission’s refusal to
on the application of the directives listed above.                      provide that documentation and information as a decision.
(1) OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.
(2) OJ 1978 L 54, p. 19.
(3) OJ 1983 L 32, p. 28.
(4) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 1.
(5) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
(6) OJ 1982 L 81, p. 29.
(7) OJ 1983 L 291, p. 1.                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
(8) OJ 1984 L 74, p. 49.
(9) OJ 1984 L 274, p. 11.
                                                                        Domstolen, by order of that court of 11 November 1999,
(10) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16.                                                in the case of Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran
(11) OJ 1990 L 219, p. 49.
(12) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.                                                                      (Case C-441/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of
Appeal brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer                     11 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the Third                  on 19 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran on the following
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer                      questions:
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        1. Is the exception which applies to Sweden under Article 1(2)
                        (Case C-436/99 P)                                   of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980
                                                                            on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of workers in the event of the
                          (2000/C 34/24)                                    insolvency of their employer to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                            that, in accordance with Swedish case-law as it had
An appeal against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the                  developed and was applicable until 1 July 1994, the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                exception is applicable to an employee who did not himself
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer and the                  own any share of the undertaking but whose close relative
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          owned an essential share of that undertaking?


title: Case T-593/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Al-Chihabi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to property — Right to respect for private life — Proportionality)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Al-Chihabi v Council
   (Case T-593/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to property - Right to respect for private life - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 198/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fares Al-Chihabi (Aleppo, Syria) (represented initially by L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Boelaert and T. Scharf, and subsequently by T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1), and Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), and any subsequent legislation to the extent that it maintains or replaces those acts in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Fares Al-Chihabi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-682/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/27

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-682/13 P)
   2014/C 45/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially set aside the order of the General Court delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 in so far as it dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, (1) published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011, and

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant alleges, first, infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.
   Secondly, the appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action brought having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The appellant takes issue with its discrimination as a producer of organic foodstuffs on the ground that the authorisation of steviol glycosides occurred in a manner which conferred on its conventional competitors an unfounded and unfair competitive advantage.
   The appellant seeks, in addition, to be treated equally by the European Union legislature. It alleges infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also alleges discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter in its capacity as an undertaking producing organic food vis-à-vis conventional food undertakings. With a view to establishing that the discrimination in question is arbitrary, the appellant invokes the European Union’s agreement with the United States of America of February 2012, which allows organic products produced with steviol glycosides in accordance with US organic law to be distributed within the European Union’s internal market with the organic logo of the EU. This, it argues, shows that there is no valid reason to allow the appellant’s conventional competitors to produce yoghurt with steviol glycosides and, in addition, to choose a legal instrument which causes the appellant itself to be denied that freedom to conduct a business. The appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 December 2012 in Case E-14/11 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of Organization of Procedure — Reopening of oral procedure)

text:
               25.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 21 December 2012
   in Case E-14/11
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of Organization of Procedure — Reopening of oral procedure)
   2013/C 118/10
   In Case E-14/11, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision in Case No 68736 of 16 August 2011 denying the applicants access to certain documents relating to Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak on the basis of the Rules on Access to Documents established by the College of the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 27 June 2008, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson Judges, gave judgment on 21 December 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls ESA’s decision of 16 August 2011‘Norway Post/Privpak — Access to documents’ insofar as it denies full or partial access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders ESA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Orders Posten Norge AS to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-213/13: Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Order of the General Court of 30 March 2015 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)
   (Case T-213/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 178/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Fransisco, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (Tarbes, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte and R. Zeineh, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 775/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne and Square, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 September 1996 in the case of SPAR Österreichische Warenhandels AG, Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg (Case C-318/96)

text:
 No C 336/22             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                   Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Directive
— declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                        93/60/EECf 1 ) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                         obligations under that directive and under the EC
     provisions necessary to comply with Directives                          Treaty,
     93/53/EEC ( 1 ), 93/54/EEC ( 2 ), 93/ 113/EC ( 3 ) and
     93/114/EC ( 4 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
     obligations under those Directives and under the EC
     Treaty,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                       Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
                                                                         for their implementation. In the present case, when the
                                                                         time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 , the Italian Republic had
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         not taken the steps necessary to comply in full with Directive
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member                93/60/EEC .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
for their implementation . In the present case, when the                 (') OJ No L 186 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 28 .
time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directives
93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC, on 1 January 1995 in respect of
Article 7 of Directive 93 / 113/EC and on 1 October 1994 in
respect of Directive 93/114/EC and the remaining
provisions of Directive 93/ 113/EC, the Italian Republic had
not taken the steps necessary to comply with those
Directives .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs
(M   OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 23 .                             gericht Wien by order of that court of 18 September 1996 in
(2 ) OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .                             the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels AG,
(3)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 17.                                     Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg
(4)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                                                   ( Case C-318/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/44 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien ( Administrative Court,
                                                                        Vienna ) of 18 September 1996 , which was received at the
Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis                      Court Registry on 30 September 1996 , for a preliminary
sion of the European Communities against the Italian                    ruling in the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels
                               Republic                                 AG, Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg on the
                                                                        following questions :
                          ( Case C-317/96 )
                            ( 96/C 336/43 )                              1.  Does     Article  17     of the     sixth Council Directive
                                                                             77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, prohibit a Member State from
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    charging a levy assessed at a fixed rate on the basis
                                                                             of:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                        ( a ) the turnover tax payable on supplies of goods and
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           other supplies made by other traders to the person
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/23
           subject to the levy for the purposes of the latter's       3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
           business , with the exception of sales of businesses ,          must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
           and                                                             to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in 90
                                                                           days ?
     ( b ) the turnover tax payable by the person subject to
           the levy on imports of goods for his business or on        (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
           purchases effected within the Community for the                imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton
           purposes of his business ?                                     yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No L 82 , 27 . 3 . 1992 ,
                                                                          p. 1 ).
2 . Does Article 33 of the sixth Directive prohibit the
     charging of a levy such as that described in the first
     question ?
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                     Removal from the register of Case C-55/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/46 )
                                                                      By order of 1 8 July 1996 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                      register of Case C-55/95 : Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo                   Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Tribunal Administrativo (2? Sec^ao — Contencioso
Tributario ), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996,          (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil, SA v.
                          Fazenda Publica
                         ( Case C-322/96
                           ( 96/C 336/45 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-156/94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Supremo                     By order of 1 1 September 1996 the President of the Court of
Tribunal Administrativo ( 2? Sec^ao — Contencioso                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Tributario) ( Supreme Administrative Court (2nd Division —            from the register of Case C-156/94 : Commission of the
Fiscal Matters )) of 14 February 1996 , which was received at         European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom
the Court Registry on 2 October 1996 , for a preliminary              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Ireland, supported
ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil , SA          by the Republic of France .
v. Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
1 . Is the increase ( of 1% for each month that elapses
     without payment being made, following the 30th day
     after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
     the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 (') of 23 March 1992
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-115/96 ( )
     applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date                                    96/C 336/48 )
     falling after that 30th day ?
                                                                      By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Court of
2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a       from the register of Case C-l 55/96 ( reference for a
     distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in      preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta ( Customs
     circumstance like those in this case [see the facts proved]      Board ), Helsinki ): Application for an advance ruling by
     where the price of the imported goods, agreed as payable         Outokumpu Oy .
     in 90 days, was about 2,8 % greater than the price
     payable CAD ( cash against documents )?                          (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case T-525/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014  — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)
   (Case T-525/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 462/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhangjiakou, China) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case R 1868/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-607/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 — Articles 7, 11 and 21 — Tariff quotas — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Newcomers — Import licences — Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences — Abusive practice — Regulation (EC) No 2988/95 — Article 4(3))

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others
   (Case C-607/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 - Articles 7, 11 and 21 - Tariff quotas - Bananas originating in ACP countries - Newcomers - Import licences - Non-transferable nature of rights deriving from certain import licences - Abusive practice - Regulation (EC) No 2988/95 - Article 4(3)))
   (2015/C 294/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane, European Commission

      Defendants: Francesco Cimmino, Costantino Elmi, Diletto Nicchi, Vincenzo Nicchi, Ivo Lazzeri, Euclide Lorenzon, Patrizia Mansutti, Maurizio Misturelli, Maurizio Momesso, Mirjam Princic, Marco Raffaelli, Gianni Vecchi, Marco Malavasi, Massimo Malavasi, Umberto Malavasi, Carlo Mosca, Luca Nicoli, Raffaella Orsero, Raffaello Orsero, Erminia Palombini, Matteo Surian

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 of 25 July 2000, in conjunction with Article 11 of that regulation, is to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that an economic agent must have been engaged in commercial activity as an importer ‘independently and on [his] own account’ must be satisfied not only for the purpose of the registration of such an agent as a ‘newcomer’ within the meaning of that provision but also that of ensuring that the agent may maintain that status in order to import bananas under the tariff quotas laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations;

               2.

               Article 21(2) of Regulation No 2362/98, as amended, must be interpreted as precluding transactions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a newcomer purchases, through another operator registered as a newcomer, goods from a traditional operator before the goods are imported into the EU, then sells them to that traditional operator, through the same intermediary, after importing the goods into the EU, if those transactions constitute an abusive practice, which it is for the national court to establish;

               3.

               Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the finding of an abusive practice in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings means that an operator who has placed himself artificially in a situation enabling him to obtain unlawfully the benefit of the preferential rate of duty for the importation of bananas is obliged to pay the duties on the goods concerned, without prejudice, where appropriate, to any administrative, civil or criminal-law penalties provided for by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-173/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2008 — Kloosterboer Services B.V. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2008 — Kloosterboer Services B.V. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid
   (Case C-173/08)
   (2008/C 183/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kloosterboer Services B.V.

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 (1) of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid in so far as, according to that Regulation, subheading 8414 59 30 of the Common Nomenclature covers the goods described in paragraph 2.7 (2) above?

               2.

               If the Regulation is invalid, can the Common Customs Tariff then be interpreted to mean that those goods should be classified as ‘parts and accessories of the machines of heading 8471’ as referred to in subheading 8473 30 90 of the CN?

      (1)  OJ L 64, p. 21.

      (2)  The products consist of two elements: a ‘heat sink’ (heat exchanger) and a fan, which are durably attached to each other to form a whole.


title: Case F-1/06: Action brought on  1 January 2006  — Fernandez Ortis v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/33

         Action brought on 1 January 2006 — Fernandez Ortis v Commission
   (Case F-1/06)
   (2006/C 74/64)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Juan Miguel Fernandez Ortis (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the dismissal of the applicant by decision of 17 June 2005 is unlawful, constituting an abuse of legal process, and accordingly annul that decision and the decision associated with it of 23 September 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former official of the Commission, took up his duties on 1 February 2004, the date on which his nine-month probationary period began, in accordance with Article 34(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities.
   A report of 4 October 2004 recommended his dismissal, but the Commission decided exceptionally to extend his probationary period until 30 April 2005 in accordance with Article 34(3) of the Staff Regulations. By decision of 17 June 2005 the Commission dismissed the applicant with effect from 1 July 2005.
   In support of his application, the applicant claims that his dismissal is unlawful on the ground that he was dismissed 17 months after the commencement of his probationary period, which, under Article 34(4) of the Staff Regulations, may not exceed 15 months.


title: Case T-650/13: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014  — Lomnici v Parliament (Action for annulment — Petition addressed to the European Parliament concerning the new law on Slovak citizenship — Petition declared admissible — Decision to close the procedure — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/42

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Lomnici v Parliament
   (Case T-650/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Petition addressed to the European Parliament concerning the new law on Slovak citizenship - Petition declared admissible - Decision to close the procedure - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 409/60
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoltán Lomnici (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Lomnici, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Pospíšilová Padowska and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 to declare Petition No 1298/2012 closed.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The European Parliament’s request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Slovak Republic and Hungary.

               4.

               Mr Zoltán Lomnici shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament.

               5.

               The Slovak Republic and Hungary shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96: Bayer AG v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of "agreement between undertakings" — Proof of the existence of an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)

text:
C 95/8                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.3.2001
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 26 October 2000
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
in Case T-41/96: Bayer AG v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)                                   in Case T-175/97: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of ‘agreement
between undertakings’ — Proof of the existence of an                         (Officials — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Posting
      agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)                         in a third country — Adjustment of weightings — Retro-
                                                                                active effect — Recovery of overpayment)
                           (2001/C 95/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/14)
                    (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-41/96: Bayer AG,established in Leverkusen (Ger-                                        (Language of the case: French)
many), represented by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported by European Federation
                                                                             In Case T-175/97: Bernard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis
of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, established in Gene-
                                                                             Bessette, Pier Luigi Bruzzone, Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico
va (Switzerland), represented initially by C. Walker, Solicitor,
                                                                             Di Pietro, Barry John Green, Remmelt Haange, Ronald Hems-
and subsequently by T. Woodgate, Solicitor, with an address
                                                                             worth, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
                                                                             Mondino, Alfredo Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini,
398 Route d’Esch, against Commission of the European
                                                                             Mike Michael Wykes, temporary agents of the Commission of
Communities (Agents: W. Wils and K. Wiedner) supported by
                                                                             the European Communities, all residing in Naka (Japan), and
Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in
                                                                             Michel Dupon, temporary agent of the Commission of the
Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
                                                                             European Communities, residing in Tokyo (Japan), represented
W.A. Rehmann and U. Zinsmeister, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                             by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Becker and Cahen, 3 Rue
and Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume — application for the
                                                                             des Foyers, against the Commission of the European Com-
annulment of Commission Decision 96/478/EC of 10 January
                                                                             munities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart),
1996 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                             supported by Council of the European Union (Agents:
Treaty (Case IV/34.279/F3 — Adalat) (OJ 1996 L 201, p. 1)
                                                                             P.M. Cossu and T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                             all the salary slips of the applicants from May 1996 and for an
Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-
                                                                             order requiring the Commission to repay to the applicants the
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                             amounts withheld from their salary with effect from June
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                             1996 by way of recovery of amounts overpaid and to pay
ment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                             them the amounts by which their salaries had been reduced as
                                                                             from May 1996 - the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 96/478/EC of 10 January                     composed of J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi and A. Potocki,
      1996 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC               Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
      Treaty (Case IV/34.279/F3 — Adalat);                                   judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
      costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred by the       1.    dismisses the application;
      latter in the proceedings for interim relief;
3.    Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’           2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
      Associations and the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Impor-
      teure eV to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.98.
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.96.