title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Case C-130/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Krings GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Case C-130/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Krings GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Preparation with a basis of extract of tea)
   (2004/C 94/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-130/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Krings GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, first, on the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff (‘the CN’) in the version set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and, second, on the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 of 12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44, p. 25), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Examination of the second question has not revealed any factors affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 of 12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it classifies the products described in points 2 and 3 of the table set out in the annex thereto under subheading 2101 20 92 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in the version set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.

               2.

               The classification decided by the Commission of the European Communities in Regulation No 306/2001 in respect of the products identified at points 2 and 3 of the table set out in the annex to that regulation is applicable by analogy to two mixtures intended for the production of beverages with a basis of tea, both composed of 64 % granulated sugar and 1.9 % extract of tea and water, to which is added, in one of the two mixtures, 0.8 % citric acid.

      (1)  OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.


title: Case C-549/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/11

         Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-549/09)
   2010/C 80/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to implement the Commission Decision of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (1) by recovering from the beneficiaries the aid which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market in Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 4 and 5 of that decision;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has still not taken the measures necessary to recover, ‘without delay’, from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market or, in any event, has not communicated those measures to the Commission.
   France was to inform the Commission, within a period of two months from notification of the decision, of the measures taken to comply with that decision. However, more than five years have elapsed since the French authorities received that decision and no reimbursement of the aid granted has been made.
   The applicant recalls furthermore that, according to settled case-law, the only defence available to a Member State against infringement proceedings brought by the Commission on the basis of Article 108(2) TFEU is to plead that it was absolutely impossible to implement the decision. However, the French authorities have never pleaded exceptional and unforeseeable difficulties rendering implementation of the decision impossible. They have merely indicated that they intended to take the relevant recovery measures jointly with another matter concerning recovery of other incompatible aid.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle, by decision of that court of 31 January 1995 in the case of Ministère Public v. Pierre Goupil (Case C-39/95)

text:
 No C 87/6             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
 The appellants claim that the Court should :                        scope of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3821/85 of
                                                                     20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road
 1 . set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the       transport (2), vehicles belonging to private companies
      judgment of the Court of First Instance ( x );                 engaged in the collection and treatment of waste which
                                                                     transport waste skips or industrial waste, including cases
 2 . refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for          where such transport is effected over long distances ?
      examination of the fourth plea in law relied upon by the
      appellants in Case T-450/93 ;                                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 .
                                                                     (2 ) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 8 .
 3 . reserve the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Infringement of Community law:
                                                                     Action brought on 17 February 1995 by the Council of the
— The condition laid down by the Court of First Instance in                European Union against the European Parliament
     the judgment appealed against, namely that the                                            (Case C-41/95 )
     Commission should previously have consulted the                                            ( 95/C 87/12 )
     appellants in the present case, modifies the system in
     force concerning the administration of the European
     Social Fund ( ESF) as provided for in Council Regulation        An action against the European Parliament was brought
     (EEC) No 2950/83 (2 ). The ESF deals only with the              before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on
     Member State. The appellants' contacts are directly with        17 February 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
     the Member State concerned. Consequently, the                   represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Felix Van Craeyenest and
     Commission, in accordance with the regulation, is               Yves Cretien, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     required to consult only the Member State prior to the          Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard, European
   . adoption of a definitive decision to reduce assistance .        Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer.
     The condition laid down by the Court of First Instance is
     also contrary to the principle of subsidiarity.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
— As regards the finding that the reasons stated were                1 . annul the act of the President of the European
     insufficient, the Court of First Instance has not taken               Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
     into account the appellants' prior awareness of the                   adoption of the budget for the financial year
     background to the Commission's justified doubts and                   1995 (!);
     suspicions that they had not complied with the
     conditions for the grant of the disputed decision.              2. consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
                                                                           European Parliament on the same day, invalid;
(*) Judgment of 6 December 1994, in Case T-450/93 .
(2 ) OJ No L 289, 22 . 10 . 1983 .                                   3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
                                                                           been adopted up until the date when judgment is
                                                                           delivered are retained in their entirety;
                                                                    4. order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police,
La Rochelle, by decision of that court of 31 January 1995 in
         the case of Ministere Public v. Pierre Goupil              — Infringement of Article 203 of the EC Treaty: the
                                                                          Parliament adopted 'amendments' relating to budget
                        (Case C-39/95 )                                   headings classified as compulsory expenditure, namely
                           (95/C 87/11 )                                  certain items of agricultural guarantee expenditure. In so
                                                                          doing, it compromised the division of powers between
                                                                          the two arms of the budgetary authority arising by virtue
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of Article 203 (4), (5 ) and ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty.
European Communities by a decision of the Tribunal de
Police (Local Criminal Court), La Rochelle, of 31 January
                                                                    — Breach of the undertakings agreed to by the European
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        Parliament in the context of the Joint Declaration of
17 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                30 June 1982 on various measures to improve the
Ministere Public (Public Prosecutor's Office ) v. Pierre
                                                                          budgetary procedure (2) and the Interinstitutional
Goupil on the following question:                                         Agreement of 29 October 1993 on budgetary discipline
                                                                          and improvement of the budgetary procedure ( 3), and
Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3820/85 of                 consequently of the institutions' duty to cooperate in a
20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social                   straightforward manner with each other: by proceeding
legislation relating to road transport ( x ), exempt from the             to classify existing headings in the budget, and by laying


title: Case T-404/05: Action brought on  9 November 2005  — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/17

         Action brought on 9 November 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-404/05)
   (2006/C 22/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Nikolaos Korogiannakis and Nikolaos Keramidas, lawyers, assisted by Maria Tassopoulou)

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

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 of 1 September 2005 on the reduction of assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (New Athens International Airport at Spata) on the basis of Commission Decision C(96) 1356 of 24 May 1996;

               —

               order the Commission to refund, with interest at the statutory rate, the sum paid by the Hellenic Republic, which corresponds to the reduction in assistance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission sought the reimbursement, as wrongly paid, of the sum of EUR 12 781 410, invoking irregularities with regard to the financial assistance of the Cohesion Fund for the Project ‘New Athens International Airport at Spata’.
   The Hellenic Republic seeks annulment of the decision, submitting that it was not adopted within the time-limit laid down by Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1386/2002 and Article H of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/1994.
   In the alternative, the Hellenic Republic disputes the Commission's assessment that account was not taken of a sum amounting to EUR 48 000 000 in respect of air navigation equipment. It further submits that, by imposing a correction of 2 % for an alleged failure to observe adequately the prescribed publicity measures, the Commission impermissibly applied Decision 455/96 retroactively to the project which, since it preceded that decision, was not subject to it. The Hellenic Republic submits, finally, that the correction in question infringes the principle of proportionality and is unlawful and unjustified.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96: Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund - Approval decision - Reduction of financial assistance - Prior hearing of beneficiary - Consultation of the Member State - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
C 340/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado, of the Madrid               Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifattu-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               riera (EFIM), established in Rome, represented by Antonio
Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones, 2 Rue Gabriel                     Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36
Lippmann, v. Commission of the European Communities                 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of
(Agents: initially GeÂrard Rozet, and Fernando Castillo de          the European Communities (Agents: initially Paul Nemitz,
la Torre, and then Mr Rozet and Juan Guerra FernaÂndez,             Lucio Gussetti and Enrico Altieri, subsequently Paul
supported by the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de              Nemitz and Paolo Stancanelli), supported by French
Salins, and Gauthier Mignot), Ð application for a                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins, Kareen Rispal-
declaration under Article 175 of the EC Treaty that the             Bellanger, Jean-Marc Belorgey, FreÂdeÂrik Million and
Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under the               Gautier Mignot) and Manoir Industries SA, established in
Treaty, first, by failing to adopt a decision in relation to        Paris, represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of
the complaints made by the applicant against the                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Kingdom of Spain for breach of Article 92 of the Treaty             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 rue
and secondly by failing to initiate the procedure provided          Goethe, Ð application for annulment of Commission
for under Article 93(2) of the Treaty, alternatively, for           Decision 96/614/EC of 29 May 1996 concerning certain
annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty of the                    measures granted by Italy in favour of Breda Fucine
Commission's decision allegedly contained in a letter of            Meridionali SpA (OJ L 272 of 25.10.1996, p. 46),
20 February 1996, Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              declaring the State aid granted by the Italian Government
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,              to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA incompatible with the
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.          common market and illegal, Ð the Court of First Instance
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V.
on 15 September 1998, in which it:                                  Tiili, President; C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and
                                                                    J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
1. declares that the Commission failed to fulfil its                1998, in which it:
     obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt a
     decision following the two complaints lodged by the
                                                                    1. dismisses the applications;
     applicant on 2 March 1992 and 12 November 1993;
                                                                    2. orders the applicants to pay jointly and severally the
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                    costs incurred by the Commission and by Manoir
     other than those incurred as a result of the                        industries SA;
     intervention by the French Republic;
                                                                    3. orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs
                                                                    (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
     together with the costs incurred by the applicant by
     reason of its intervention.
(1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                    in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96: Mediocurso,
                                                                    Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the Commission of the European Communities (1)
                     of 15 September 1998                           (European Social Fund Ð Approval decision Ð Reduction
in Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96: Breda Fucine                 of financial assistance Ð Prior hearing of beneficiary Ð
Meridionali SpA (BFM) and Ente Partecipazioni e Finan-              Consultation of the Member State Ð Protection of
ziamento Industria Manifatturiera (EFIM) v. Commission              legitimate expectations Ð Legal certainty Ð Statement of
               of the European Communities (1)                                reasons Ð Manifest error of assessment)
(State aid Ð Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty Ð Notice of                                     (98/C 340/33)
initiation of procedure Ð Aid not explicitly mentioned Ð
Aid to companies located in disadvantaged regions Ð                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   Restructuring Ð Recovery of aid Ð Limitation period)
                         (98/C 340/32)                              In Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96, Mediocurso, Esta-
                                                                    belecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, established in
                                                                    Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Moura Pinheiro, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                    31, Grand-rue, against Commission of the European
In Joined Cases T-126/96 and T-127/96, Breda Fucine                 Communities (Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut
Meridionali SpA (BFM), established in Bari (Italy), and             Simonsson) Ð application for the annulment of
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/19
Commission Decision C (96)1185 of 14 August 1996                     personal file Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
reducing the amount of aid granted in Decision C(89)                 Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.
0570 of 22 March 1989, and of Commission Decision                    Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
C(96) 1186 of 14 August 1996 reducing the amount of                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
aid granted in Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 Ð                16 September 1998, in which it:
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a           1. orders the Commission to pay the sum of BFR 35 000
judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:                                which it has agreed to award to the applicant, if it has
                                                                          not already made that payment;
1. joins Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96 for the purposes of             2. dismisses the remainder of the action;
    the judgment;
                                                                     3. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. in Case T-180/96, annuls Commission Decision
    C(96)1185 of 14 August 1996 in so far as it relates to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
    sub-heading 14.3.12 of the applicant's request for
    payment, and for the rest dismisses the application;
3. dismisses the application in Case T-181/96;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case
    T-180/96;                                                                             of 30 September 1998
                                                                     in Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
5. orders the applicant to pay the costs in Case T-181/96.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Auxiliary staff Ð Duration of contract Ð
                                                                     Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations Ð
(1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.                                            Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                             officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                                (98/C 340/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 16 September 1998                            In Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc, residing in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
in Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of                 initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                the European Communities (1)                         address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu-
                                                                     ciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Commission
(Officials Ð Staff report Ð Reiteration of the contents of           of the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-
the previous report Ð Belated inclusion in the personal              Kayser and Florence Clotuche) Ð application, first, for
                 file of the person concerned)                       annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                          (98/C 340/34)                              reducing from 36 months to 3 months the duration of a
                                                                     contract offering the applicant a position as a member of
                                                                     the auxiliary staff and, second, for compensation for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        material and non-material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant as a result of that decision Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
In Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the              and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Dalheim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini,                30 September 1998, in which it:
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de
                                                                     1. dismisses the application;
Longwy, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro)
Ð application, first, for annulment of the decision of the           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of 23 October 1995 rejecting the applicant's
request for the drawing-up of his staff report for the
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
period 1991Ð1993 and, second, for compensation for the
non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as
a result of the belated inclusion of that staff report in his


title: Case T-71/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/38

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)
   (Case T-71/15)
   (2015/C 118/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa-ken, Japan)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Land Glider’ — Community trade mark application No 8 3 24  196

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2014 in Case R 1415/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-490/11: Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — IBIS Srl v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — IBIS Srl v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt
   (Case C-490/11) (1)

   2012/C 235/27
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-630/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Peter Strobl against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-56/05 Strobl v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/28

         Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Peter Strobl against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-56/05 Strobl v Commission
   (Case T-630/11 P)
   2012/C 49/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peter Strobl (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Strobl v Commission;

               —

               declare the defendant’s grading decision in [Mr Strobl’s] appointment of 7 October 2004 incorrect and annul it;

               —

               order the defendant to cease to discriminate against Mr Strobl and to compensate him for the disadvantage suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the entire proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal with regard to the professional experience required for the appellant’s post.

               2.

               Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal and contradictory interpretation of the evidence with regard to the grading of the appellant and, to that extent, infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based.

               3.

               Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons in relation to its rejection of a number of the appellant’s complaints.

               4.

               Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the review of the appellant’s step in grade.

               5.

               Failure on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons with regard to the applicability of the relevant case-law.


title: Case C-487/06 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by British Aggregates Association against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02: British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/8

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by British Aggregates Association against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02: British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-487/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the CFI of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02;

               —

               annul Commission decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April 2002‘State aid N863/01-United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’, save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in this appeal and the procedure in Case T-210/01 in the CFI.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by assessing the existence of state aid in a non-objective way.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by distinguishing the situation of the AGL from the situation at issue in Adria-Wien Pipeline (1) when assessing selectivity.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by accepting that an environmental levy is non-selective because it is applied to a specific sector, without requiring or providing a clear definition of that sector.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wring ‘standard of review’ to the Commission decision.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in its assessment of the ‘nature and general scheme’ of the AGL. and in relation to the issue of the export exemption.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by confirming that the Commission was under no obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the contested decision is sufficiently reasoned.

      (1)  [2001]ECR I-8365.


title: Case T-78/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andexhser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455 — Earlier Community figurative mark SEIT 1908 ANDECHSER NATUR and earlier national figurative mark ANDECHSER NATUR — Relative ground of refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andexhser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)
   (Case T-78/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455 - Earlier Community figurative mark SEIT 1908 ANDECHSER NATUR and earlier national figurative mark ANDECHSER NATUR - Relative ground of refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Andexhser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany) (represented by: S. Jackermeier, lawyer).

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (Case R 1272/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Andechser Mokerei Scheitz GmbH and Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5. 2014.


title: Case T-283/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)
   (Case T-283/11)
   2012/C 32/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: nfon AG (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

               —

               declare the proposed evidence admissible;

               —

               accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2011 in Case R 1017/2009-4 and, consequently, refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 6.206.321 ‘nfon’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Applicant for a Community trade mark: nfon AG.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘nfon’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative and word mark ‘fon’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the opposing marks are similar; and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since nfon AG claims to be taking advantage of the reputation acquired by the earlier marks.


title: Case C-387/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Milano, Prima Sezione penale by order of that court of 26 October 2002 in criminal proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi

text:
C 19/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
       former employee, at his request, the documents relating to his      Chamber) of 26 October 2002 received at the Court Registry
       qualifications and professional experience gained during his        on 31 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
       employment.                                                         proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi on the following ques-
                                                                           tions:
( 1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.
                                                                           1.    Does Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC ( 1) on co-ordi-
                                                                                nation of safeguards which, for the protection of the
                                                                                interests of members and others, are required by Member
                                                                                States of companies within the meaning of the second
                                                                                paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view
                                                                                to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespat-                             Community concern not only cases of failure to publish
entgericht by order of that Court of 26 June 2002 in the                         the balance sheet and profit and loss account, but also
complaint proceedings of Deutsche Telekom AG against
                                                                                cases where those documents are published but their
           DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                                   contents are false, given that the harm to the interests of
                                                                                members and third parties is clearly greater in the latter
                          (Case C-367/02)                                        case? Is the directive intended in that respect to lay down
                                                                                a minimum level of protection at Community level
                           (2003/C 19/18)                                        leaving it to the Member States to put in place means of
                                                                                protection against the submitting of false balance sheets
                                                                                or the publishing of false company accounts?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the (Federal Patent Court)                2.    Do the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and
of 26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 14 October                    dissuasiveness, which the penalties to be adopted by the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings                      Member States under Council Directive 68/151 must
of Deutsche Telekom AG against DKV Deutsche Krankenver-                          satisfy in order to be regarded as ‘appropriate’, refer to
sicherung AG on the following question:                                          the nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract,
                                                                                or rather to its application in practice having regard to
Do the words ‘association with the earlier trade mark’ in the                    the structural characteristics of the legal system within
second part of Article 4(1)(b) of the Trademarks Directive (1)                   which it takes effect?
apply to the case where the earlier trade mark is attributed to
the later trade mark, the later trade mark having been formed
by adding a well known company logo, or an element in a                    3.    Are the principles set out in Council Directive 78/660/
trade mark series belonging to the owner of the later trade                      EEC (2) of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the
mark, to the earlier trade mark, which is a one-word logo                        Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of
which is neither the undertaking’s logo nor an element in a                      companies, Council Directive 83/349/EEC (3) of 13 June
trade mark series and is of average distinctiveness?                             1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consoli-
                                                                                dated accounts and Council Directive 90/605/EEC (4) of
                                                                                8 November 1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                   annual accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consoli-
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                 dated accounts as regards the scope of those directives,
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 1).                                        upon which national measures relating to the drafting
                                                                                and contents of annual accounts and annual reports, in
                                                                                particular, of capital companies, must be based, to be
                                                                                interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting
                                                                                minimum thresholds below which inaccurate statements
                                                                                in annual accounts and annual reports relating to com-
                                                                                panies limited by shares, partnerships limited by shares
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                           and limited liability companies are not punishable?
Milano, Prima Sezione penale by order of that court of
26 October 2002 in criminal proceedings against Silvio
                             Berlusconi
                                                                           (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                          (Case C-387/02)                                  (2 ) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                           (3 ) OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1.
                           (2003/C 19/19)                                  (4 ) OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano,
Prima Sezione penale (Milan District Court, First Criminal


title: Case C-80/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 February 2014 — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), Mrs B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 February 2014 — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), Mrs B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
   (Case C-80/14)
   2014/C 151/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), Mrs B. Wilson

      Defendants: WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

      Questions referred

               (1)

                           (a)

                           In Article l(l)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) (‘the Directive’), does the phrase ‘at least 20’ refer to the number of dismissals across all of the employer's establishments in which dismissals are effected within a 90 day period, or does it refer to the number of dismissals in each individual establishment?

                           (b)

                           If Article l(l)(a)(ii) refers to the number of dismissals in each individual establishment, what is the meaning of ‘establishment’? In particular, should ‘establishment’ be construed to mean the whole of the relevant retail business, being a single economic business unit, or such part of that business as is contemplating making redundancies, rather than a unit to which a worker is assigned their duties, such as each individual store.

               (2)

               In circumstances where an employee claims a protective award against a private employer, can the Member State rely on or plead the fact that the Directive does not give rise to directly effective rights against the employer in circumstances where:

                           (i)

                           The private employer would, but for the failure by the Member State properly to implement the Directive, have been liable to pay a protective award to the employee, because of the failure of that employer to consult in accordance with the Directive; and

                           (ii)

                           That employer being insolvent, in the event that a protective award is made against the private employer and is not satisfied by that employer, and an application is made to the Member State, that Member State would itself be liable to pay any such protective award to the employee under domestic legislation that implements Directive 2008/94/EC of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (2), subject to any limitation of liability imposed on the Member State's guarantee institution pursuant to Article 4 of that Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 16

      (2)  OJ L 283, p. 36


title: Case C-421/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
11.1.2003                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/17
Action brought on 18 November 2002 by the Com-                            Action brought on 21 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-                    mission of the European Communities against the United
                            lic of Austria                                       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                          (Case C-411/02)                                                            (Case C-421/02)
                            (2003/C 7/31)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/32)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
18 November 2002 by the Commission of the European                        Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Michael                the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
Shotter of its Legal Service, with an address for service in              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its legal           Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
service, Wagner Center C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                       Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, as the itemised billing adopted by the Austria
       Republic, which indicates the composition of the charges           1)    declare that by failing to adopt in Wales the laws,
       only according to the type of charge, is not sufficiently                regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
       detailed to ensure efficient control by the consumer, the                comply with Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 85/337/
       Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                 EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
       under Article 14(2) of Directive 98/10/EC of the European                private projects on the environment as amended by
       Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on                     Directive 97/11/EC ( 1) in relation to projects listed in
       the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice                 Annex II, paragraph 1 (b) of that Directive, or, in
       telephony and on universal service for telecommuni-                      any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the
       cations in a competitive environment (1);                                Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fully fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that Directive;
2.     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          2)    declare that by failing to adopt in England and Wales,
                                                                                Scotland and Northern Ireland the laws, regulations or
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                projects on the environment as amended by Directive 97/
                                                                                11/EC in relation to projects listed in Annex II, para-
Article 14(2) of Directive 98/10/EC provides for a basic level
                                                                                graph 1 (c) of that Directive, or, in any event, by failing
of itemised billing to be available at no extra charge to the user
                                                                                to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United
of public telephone services. It is therefore not permissible to
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed
charge a fee for the basic level of itemised billing. Consequently,
                                                                                to fully fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
only a free standard billing which includes a basic level of
itemised billing within the meaning of Article 14(2) of
Directive 98/10/EC can be regarded as complying with the                  3)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
requirements of that directive. That is, however, not the                       Ireland to pay the costs.
situation in Austria. The standard billing which is provided
free of charge under the Austrian Law on telecommunications
contains only the composition of the charges according to the
category of call (regional calls, supra-regional calls, and
international calls). It cannot therefore be accepted as a basic          Pleas in law and main arguments
level of itemised billing, because it is too general to enable the
user actually to verify and control the charges incurred for
each individual call.
                                                                          The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities
                                                                          of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures
( 1) (OJ 1981 L 101, p. 24.                                               necessary for incorporating Directive 85/337/EEC into dom-
                                                                          estic law so that such process is complete wihin the time limit
                                                                          laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and
                                                                          to inform the Commission thereof.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/18                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission                         Removal from the register of Case C-367/01 ( 1)
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other                                              (2003/C 7/35)
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions              By order of 16 October 2002 the President of the Court of
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-367/01: Commission of the
( 1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5                                                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-374/00 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/33)                                         Removal from the register of Case C-371/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/36)
By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/00:                  By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Third
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Republic.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-371/01:
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
                                                                         Republic.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
      Removal from the register of Case C-448/00 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-158/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/37)
By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 25 October 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-448/00 P: Commission of the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v BP Chemicals Ltd.                                 from the register of Case C-158/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Roma): Lidia Marcaletti v Istituto
                                                                         nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.


title: Case C-318/02: Action brought on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.12.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 305/9
Is Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation            20 291 540 euros from the amount of aid declared by the
EEC No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 ( 1) on the                Netherlands to the EAGGF in connection with the special
application of social security schemes to employed persons               market support measures relating to classical swine fever in
and their families moving within the Community, to be                    the Netherlands in 1997 and 1998, comprising in particular:
interpreted as precluding a national rule that discriminates
against a Community citizen in receipt of advances on
maintenance payments, where the father liable for maintaining
that citizen is serving a criminal sentence in his Member State          —    a deduction of 11 148 318,18 euros on account of the
of origin (i.e. not in Austria); and, where the child of a German             fact that the Netherlands, by failing correctly to apply the
national is resident in Austria, does denying that child                      denaturing provisions, allegedly impaired the application
entitlement to maintenance payments because his father is                     of the monitoring rules and thereby increased the risk of
serving a criminal sentence, which was handed down in                         evasion of the applicable legislation (flat-rate correction
Austria, in his Member State of origin (and not in Austria)                   of 5 %): even if it is accepted that, when carrying out the
constitute discrimination against that child?                                 denaturing of (parts of) pigs pursuant to Annex III to
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 413/97 (1), the authorities failed to
                                                                              do so in the correct order, it cannot be maintained that,
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.                                                   in such denaturing, the objectives of Annex III (namely to
                                                                              ensure that (parts of) pigs are slaughtered and destroyed
                                                                              instead of coming back onto the market) were dis-
                                                                              regarded;
                                                                         —    a deduction of 6 427 370,45 euros on account of the
                                                                              fact that the Netherlands authorities allegedly miscon-
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of                         strued and misapplied the term ‘batch’ within the meaning
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                        of Regulation (EC) No 413/97: having regard to the
                            Communities                                       wording of that regulation, to the way in which the term
                                                                              ‘batch’ in comparable legislation has been interpreted in
                          (Case C-318/02)                                     the past and to the fact that the interpretation of that
                                                                              term advocated by the Commission (which draws a
                                                                              distinction between different categories of piglets) has
                          (2002/C 305/14)                                     proved unworkable in practice, the Netherlands auth-
                                                                              orities did not misconstrue or misapply the term ‘batch’.
                                                                              In the alternative, the Netherlands Government pleads
                                                                              that the calculation carried out by the Commission to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     determine the amount of the reduction is incorrect in
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  law;
Communities on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and N. Bel, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in The Hague.
                                                                         —    as regards the deduction of 2 750 070,91 euros on
                                                                              account of the fact that the Netherlands authorities
The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court should:                  allegedly failed generally to comply with the checking
                                                                              system and committed other administrative faults (flat-
(1) annul the Commission’s decision No C(2002) 2281 def.                      rate correction of 2 %): the discrepancies established by
      of 26 June 2002 excluding from Community financing                      the Commission between the number of pigs needing,
      certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under                 according to individual veterinary surgeons, to be
      the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                      removed for reasons of wellbeing and the number actually
      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as                       removed within the period of two days do not in any way
      that decision concerns the exclusion from Community                     indicate that the numbers of pigs to be removed, as
      financing of expenditure incurred by the Netherlands                    declared by the individual veterinary surgeons, were
      under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  incorrect. As a result of the long duration of the
      Fund in the financial years 1997 and 1998;                              crisis, virtually all the pigs from the affected areas were
                                                                              ultimately removed and destroyed. Consequently, even if,
                                                                              and in so far as, it is to be accepted that, in some cases,
(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    the declarations of the individual veterinary surgeons
                                                                              were not well-founded, those declarations did not in
                                                                              any way entail any financial prejudice or risk for the
                                                                              Community budget. As regards the export of carcasses to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Germany, the Netherlands Government argues that the
                                                                              checking and monitoring of shipments transported from
The Netherlands Government considers that the decision is                     the Netherlands to the German destruction plants guaran-
unlawful, or at least that it is based on an incorrect determi-               teed that the (parts of) pigs were not unlawfully with-
nation of the facts, inasmuch as it deducts the sum of                        drawn in order to be placed back on the market. The
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.12.2002
      Netherlands Government further points out that, to date,          Action brought on 25 September 2002 by the Com-
      the Commission has been unwilling to grant access to the          mission of the European Communities against the Federal
      German documents which it clearly had in its possession                                Republic of Germany
      and on which, inter alia, it based its assessment of the
      alleged shortcomings within the German destruction
      plants.                                                                                (Case C-341/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/16)
( 1) OJ 1997 L 62.
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 25 September 2002 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by J. Sack and H. Kreppel,
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by the Com-                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
                           guese Republic
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                          (Case C-339/02)                               the Court should:
                          (2002/C 305/15)                               (1) declare that, by not recognising as integral parts of the
                                                                              minimum wage all allowances and supplements — apart
                                                                              from the construction supplement — paid by employers
                                                                              in other Member States to their employees in the
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                         construction sector who are posted to Germany, and
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                    consequently by leaving out of account the wage elements
23 September 2002 by the Commission of the European                           actually paid by such employers to their employees thus
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as                        posted, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             Article 49 EC and Directive 96/71/EC ( 1) of the European
                                                                              Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
                                                                              concerning the posting of workers in the framework of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the provision of services;
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force            (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 1999/103/EC of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 24 January 2000 amending Council
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws
      of the Member States relating to units of measurement ( 1),
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations      The minimum wage fixed by national legislation in a Member
      under Article 2(1) of the abovementioned Directive 1999/          State pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC is to be
      103/EC; and                                                       assimilated to the earnings received from his employer by an
                                                                        employee posted abroad. In that connection, regard must be
—     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform            had to the fact that, in view of the frequent differences in
      the Commission immediately of such measures, the                  remuneration structures, a Member State may not impose its
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          own remuneration structure on employment relationships
      under Article 2(1) of the abovementioned Directive 1999/          with employees posted from other Member States. Conse-
      103/EC; and                                                       quently, for the purposes of comparison, all of the remuner-
                                                                        ation paid by his employer to an employee posted abroad in
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                   respect of the full duration of the posting is to be included.
                                                                        The elements to be left out of account are those expressly
                                                                        excepted by the directive, namely contributions to supplemen-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         tary occupational retirement pension schemes and expenditure
                                                                        actually incurred during the posting, such as expenditure on
                                                                        travel, board and lodging. Since the directive does not cover
The time-limit for implementation expired on 9 February                 either social insurance contributions or tax deductions, it is
2001.                                                                   the gross amounts, not the net ones, which are to be compared.
                                                                        Although the German Government, in its observations dated
                                                                        30 May 2001, goes so far as to concede, in part, that the
( 1) OJ 2000 L 34, p. 17.                                               general practice of leaving all allowances and supplements out
                                                                        of account is not in accordance with Community law, the
                                                                        Commission has established that Annex 4 to the ‘Merkblatt


title: Case T-597/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (BIESUL)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/21

         Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (BIESUL)
   (Case T-597/10)
   2011/C 80/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Biodes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul International, SL (Ponferrada, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in Case R 1519/2009-1;

               —

               order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Biodes, SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BIESUL’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manasul International, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘MANASUL’ and ‘MANASUL ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark applied for refused.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no similarity between the marks at issue and the Board of Appeal failed to examine the proof of use of the earlier marks.

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


title: Case T-68/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of illegality — Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 — Article 215 TFEU — Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Decision 2012/35/CFSP — Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 — Fundamental rights — Articles 2 TEU, 21 TEU and 23 TEU — Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Post Bank Iran v Council
   (Case T-68/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 - Article 215 TFEU - Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Decision 2012/35/CFSP - Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 - Fundamental rights - Articles 2 TEU, 21 TEU and 23 TEU - Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 222/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Rodios and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application firstly for annulment, under Article 263 TFEU and Article 275 TFEU of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant, and secondly for a declaration, under Article 277 TFEU, of the inapplicability as regards the applicant of Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413, concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22) and of Article 23(2)(d) and Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Post Bank Iran to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-238/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (Horse Couture) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark Horse Couture — Earlier national figurative mark HORSE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (Horse Couture)
   (Case T-238/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark Horse Couture - Earlier national figurative mark HORSE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 355/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Breganzona, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (São Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2010 (Case R 723/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Manuel Jacinto, Lda and Stephanie Scatizza.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Stephanie Scatizza to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-414/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 — Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 — Temporary derogations in favour of Slovenia — Legal basis)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-414/04) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 - Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 - Temporary derogations in favour of Slovenia - Legal basis)
   (2006/C 331/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament, (represented by: A. Baas and U. Rösslein, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia, (represented by L. Uibo, Agent) Republic of Poland, represented by M. Węglarz, T. Nowakowski and T. Krawczyk, Agents
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia (OJ 2004 L 233, p. 3) — Legal basis
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia;

               2)

               Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1223/2004 until the adoption, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation founded on an appropriate legal basis, without however prolonging those effects beyond 1 July 2007;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4)

               Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-109/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-109/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/41
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-160/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-160/07)
   (2007/C 129/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to transpose into domestic law Article 7a, in conjunction with Part B of Annex XI, Article 9(2) and 12(1) in conjunction with Annex VII to Directive 95/21/EC (1), in its latest version under Directive 2002/84/EC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/21/EC as subsequently amended (in particular by Directive 2001/106 (3));

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 95/21/EC expired on 30 June 1996. The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2001/106/EC expired on 22 July 2003. The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2002/84/EC expired on 23 November 2003.

      (1)  Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships (OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53).

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 19, p. 17.


title: Case C-517/15 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-465/12: AGC Glass Europe and Others v European Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/20

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-465/12: AGC Glass Europe and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-517/15 P)
   (2015/C 398/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe, AGC France, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd, AGC Glass Germany GmbH (represented by: L. Garzaniti, A. Burckett St Laurent, and F. Hoseinian, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 in case T-465/12 AGC Glass Europe SA and Others v European Commission;

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final of 6 August 2012 (Contested Decision) which rejected in part AGC’s request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the decision in Case COMP/39. 125 — Car glass, or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants rely on the three following grounds of appeal and main arguments:

               1.

               The General Court erred in holding that the Hearing Officer’s competence, under the Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (1), does not encompass an assessment of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. In addition, the judgment distorts the facts by purporting that the Hearing Officer did assess the arguments raised by the Appellants in relation to the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment.

               2.

               The General Court erred in concluding that the Contested Decision did not breach the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. Given that the Appellants were the sole leniency applicants, they have a right not to have their confidential information published, as such publication would enable third parties to identify the source of self-incriminating statements submitted to the Commission in the context of the leniency programme.

               3.

               The judgment is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in relation to the Hearing Officer’ s competence as well as in relation to the applicability of the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment. The General Court therefore breached its duty under Article 296 TFEU and Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. In particular, the General Court does not address the reasons for which it departed from established case law that the Appellants referred to.

      (1)  OJ L 275, p. 29.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2000 in Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Absence of staff report — Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Implicit rejection of a request not disputed within the time-limits — Express confirmation of that rejection — Damage)

text:
24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/13
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am
                                                                           Main, Germany, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and
                      of 17 November 2000                                  S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of A. Schiltz,
in Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli v Commission of the                   Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de Banque et
                   European Communities (1)                                d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey, against European Central
                                                                           Bank (ECB) (Agents: C. Zilioli and J.M. Fernández-Martin) —
(Officials — Absence of staff report — Action for damages                  application for annulment, pursuant to Article 236 EC and
— Inadmissibility — Implicit rejection of a request not                    Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European
disputed within the time-limits — Express confirmation of                  System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, of
                    that rejection — Damage)                               Administrative Circular No 11/98 of 12 November 1998
                                                                           concerning ECB Internet usage policy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-
                           (2001/C 95/24)
                                                                           dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           has made an order on 24 October 2000, the operative part of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        which is as follows:
In Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli, a former official of the             1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Munich
(Germany), represented by G. Marchesini, lawyer with a right               2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
of audience before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the                     (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. Dal Ferro)
— application for compensation for the non-material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the absence of
staff reports for the reference periods 1993-1995 and 1995-
1997 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 November
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    The action is dismissed;                                                                          INSTANCE
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 19 October 2000
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           in Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenk-
                                                                               er SA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                           authorisations for medicinal products for human use which
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 contain the substance ‘amfepramone’ — Directive
                                                                                75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                        of 24 October 2000
                                                                                (2001/C 95/26)
in Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central
    Bank and Others v European Central Bank (ECB) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Members of staff of the European Central Bank — Adminis-
trative circular — Time-limit for bringing an action —
                           Inadmissibility)                                In Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenker
                                                                           SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by X. Leur-
                           (2001/C 95/25)                                  quin and L. Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt,
                                                                           7 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                           application for suspension of operation of the Commission
In Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central                   decision of 9 March 2000 relating to the withdrawal of
Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes                  marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human
Priesemann, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt,             use which contain ‘amfepramone’ [Decision C(2000) 453] —
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the ECB,                    the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order
residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany, Maria Concetta                     on 19 October 2000, the operature part of which is as follows: