title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello (Sezione Prima Civile), Venice, by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze v. SPAC SpA (Case C-260/96)

text:
5 . 10 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 294/5
     — the Directive confers upon the individual employee                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
         rights against the State acting as employer ?                   ( Sezione Prima Civile ), Venice, by order of that court of
                                                                         1 8 April 1996 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze v. SPAC
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative : must the                                           SpA
     information which the employer is required to give                                           ( Case C-260/96 )
     under Article 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( ii ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC                                    ( 96/C 294/08 )
     concerning the ' nature or category of the work ' be
     understood as meaning the classification of a job in the
     sense that, if the employee 's grading according to the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     salary scheme under a collective agreement requires                 European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello
     fulfilment of the work specifications of a particular case          ( Sezione Prima Civile ) ( Court of Appeal , First Civil
     of a salary grade, he must be able to see , from the                Division ), Venice, of 18 April 1996 , which was received at
     notification of his grading in a particular salary grade            the Court Registry on 24 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling
     and case , whether he is entitled to                                in the case of Ministero delle Finanze v. SPAC SpA on the
                                                                         following question :
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period of
         satisfactory service or advancement by case in salary
         grades ( C-253/96 ),                                            In proceedings before an Italian court for reimbursement of
                                                                         charges paid pursuant to provisions of national law which,
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period                   in view of the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in
         of satisfactory service ( C-254/96 , C-255/96 ,                 Joined Cases C-71 /91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni and
         C-2 56/96 ),                                                    Another v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato,
                                                                         conflict with Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period of                17 July 1969 ( 1 ), is a provision of national law which , by
         satisfactory service and/or advancement by case                 removing such actions from the scope of the ordinary rules
          ( C-257/96 , C-258/96 )?                                       governing actions for the recovery of charges unduly paid,
                                                                         and making them subject to special rules governing the
                                                                         reimbursement of charges paid in error, requires that the
4 . If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative : does the         right of action be exercised within a limitation period
     notification pursuant to Article 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( ii ) of Directive  running from the time when payment was made rather than
     91 /533/EEC bind the employer in the sense that he is               from the time when the relevant Community Directive was
     bound by the classification of the job notified to the              correctly transposed into national law, compatible with the
     employee until such time as he ( the employer ) proves              principles laid down in that Directive and adopted in its
     that the grading was incorrect, or at least until he shows          interpretation , and the general principles of Community law
     conclusively ( perhaps in the form of a job'assessment )            upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-208/91 ?
     that he graded the employee mistakenly or that the
     classification of the work has been lowered in the course
     of     time    or  by   amendment        to    the       collective (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
     agreement ?
5 . If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative : is the
     implementation in German law of Article 9 ( 2 ) of
     Directive 91 /533/EEC by the Information Act of 20 July
     1995 ( Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 946 ), to the effect that the
     employer has no obligation to give the employee written             Appeal brought on 7 August 1996 by 1 . the Stichting
     notification in the case of an employment relationship in           Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the Federatie van
     existence when the Act comes into force , ' if and so far as        Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against the order
     an     earlier   document    or    a   written       contract    of
                                                                         made on 4 June 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the
     employment gives the particulars required '                         European Communities in Case T-18/96 R between 1 . the
     ( paragraph 4 , sentence 2 , of the Information Act ), to be        Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the
     regarded as in conformity with Community law, with                  Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven, and the
     the consequence that such earlier notifications which                         Commission of the European Communities
     satisfy the requirements of Directive 91 /533/EEC ,
     whether it has been implemented or whether, in the                                       ( Case C-268/96 P ( R ))
     absence of implementation , it is directly applicable ,                                         ( 96/C 294/09 )
     continue to be valid , with the consequence that, if the
     employer gives a more recent written notification ( in the
     present case , in the course of proceedings ) which                 An appeal against the order made on 4 June 1996 by the
     conflicts with the earlier one, he must prove that the              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
     later notification is correct ?                                     Case T-18/96 R between 1 . the Stichting Certificatie
                                                                         Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the Federatie van Nederlandse
                                                                         Kraanverhuurbedrijven, and the Commission of the
(') OJ No L 288 , 18 . 10 . 1991 , p . 32 .
                                                                         European Communities, was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 7 August 19 96 by
                                                                          1 . the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the


title: Case T-25/04: Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 71/40                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       20.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 22 January 2004 by González y Díez
                                                                           S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated
      the 17 November 2003;
                                                                                (Case T-25/04)
—     direct that the applicant’s application for a declaration of
      invalidity fails;                                                                              (2004/C 71/70)
—     order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs here and                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
      below or order the Office to pay the appellant’s costs
      here and direct that the applicant pay the appellant’s costs
      below.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 22 January 2004 by González y
                                                                           Díez S.A., whose registered office is at Villabona-Llanera
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Asturias, Spain), represented by J. Díez-Hochleitner and
                                                                           A. Martínez Sánchez, lawyers.
Community trade mark           Word Mark ‘FUSION’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 1061050 for products              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               within class 9 (Audio, video and
                               security equipment for vehicles).
                                                                           —     annul in their entirety Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the
                                                                                Commission decision of 5 November 2003 on aid for
Proprietor of mark or          The Applicant.                                    González y Díez S.A. to cover exceptional expenses. (aid
sign whose cancellation                                                          for 2001 and misuse of aid for 1998 and 2000), and in
is sought:                                                                       so far as that decision amends Decision 2002/827/ECSC;
                                                                                and
Applicant for cancel-          Ford Motor Company, in relation
lation:                        to Community trade mark regis-              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                               tration No 747121 of the word
                               mark ‘FUSION’ for goods in class-
                               es 12 (Motor land vehicles and
                               parts and fittings therefore) and
                               37 (Motor vehicles maintenance              Pleas in law and main arguments
                               and repair services).
Decision of the Cancel-        Application upheld.                         The Decision challenged in the present proceedings abrogates
lation Division:                                                           Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Decision 2002/827/ECSC of 2 July 2002
                                                                           on the granting by Spain of aid to the undertaking González y
                                                                           Díez S.A. in 1998, 2000 and 2001. That decision has already
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           been the subject of a previous action, brought by the same
Appeal:
                                                                           company (1).
Pleas in law:                  —     The notion of similarity of
                                     customers as set out in the           The Decision challenged:
                                     contested decision is wrong.
                               —     The conclusion that the               —     states in Article 1 that certain aid for the coal industry
                                     goods set out in the respect-               granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
                                     ive registrations are at least              ing costs totalling EUR 3131726,47 constitutes an abuse
                                     similar is wrong.                           of Commission Decisions 98/637/ECSC (2) and 2001/
                                                                                162/ECSC (3) of 3 June 1998 and 13 December 2000
                                                                                respectively on the granting by Spain of aid to the
                                                                                coal industry in 1998 and 2000 and are, therefore,
                                                                                incompatible with the common market;
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 71/41
—      declares, in Article 3, that certain aid that Spain intends         The applicant claims that the Court should:
       to grant to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-
       ing costs in 2001 are incompatible with Article 7 of                —      Annul the decision of the appointing authority of
       Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002                       20 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
       on State aid to the coal industry (4);                                     classification in Grade A 7;
—      requires Spain, in Article 4, to recover, among other               —      Annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
       amounts, the aid mentioned in Article 1.                                   appointing authority of 9 October 2003 rejecting the
                                                                                applicant’s complaint;
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:                           —      Order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
—      lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
       adopt the decision challenged, following the expiry of the
       ECSC Treaty;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—      the inappropriateness of the procedure followed in
       adopting the decision challenged, the Commission having
       failed to previously to revoke Articles 1, 2 and 5 of               Following the Court’s judgment in Case T-17/95 (1), the
       Decision 2002/827/ECSC;                                             Commission adopted an amendment of the rules on the
                                                                           criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification
                                                                           in step on recruitment. By the contested decision, it confirmed
—      infringement of the principle of legal certainty and                the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 at the date of his
       cumulative procedural errors, inasmuch as Article 1 of              recruitment and for that reason rejected his request to be
       the decision challenged treats as unlawful and incompat-            reclassified.
       ible with the common market certain aid authorised by
       Decision 98/637/ECSC, even though that aid had already
       been held to be justified in Decision 2002/827/ECSC.                In support of his action, the applicant invokes the lack of
                                                                           reasoning in the contested decision, a manifest error of
—      a manifest error of assessment of the facts, inasmuch as            appraisal and alleged discrimination between the applicant
       the Commission failed to take the view that certain aid             himself, whose request to be reclassified was rejected, and
       granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructur-           other officials who, having professional experience as long as
       ing costs was justified.                                            his own, were able to secure reclassification.
(1 ) T-291/02 González y Díez v Commission (OJ 2002 C 289, p. 33).         (1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
(2 ) OJ 1998 L 303, p. 57                                                      ties of 5 October 1995; published in OJ 1995 C 315 of
(3 ) OJ 2001 L 58, p. 24                                                       25.11.1995, p. 14.
(4 ) OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the El Corte Inglés
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by Jacques Verborgh                      S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                                     Market
                                                                                (Case T-27/04)
                          (Case T-26/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/72)
                          (2004/C 71/71)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 of the European Communities on 27 January 2004 by El Corte
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by Jacques                         Inglés, established in Madrid, represented by lawyers J.-L. Rivas
Verborgh, residing in Aalter (Belgium), represented by Nicolas             Zurdo and E. López Leiva, members of the Ilustre Colegio de
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                 Madrid.


title: Case C-252/04: Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/13

         Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-252/04)
   (2004/C 201/25)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ No L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.


title: Case T-269/10: Action brought on 14 June 2010 — LIS v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/42

         Action brought on 14 June 2010 — LIS v Commission
   (Case T-269/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service (Mettmann, Germany) (represented by: K.-P. Langenkamp, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the Commission decision of 12 April 2010 to be void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2010) 2198 final of 12 April 2010 by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s requests for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of the importation of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the People’s Republic of China.
   In support of its claim, the applicant submits that, in applying Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (1) the Commission failed to have regard for the purpose and objective of that rule and did not apply principles of logical reasoning.
   In this regard, it is submitted, inter alia, that there was never any case of dumping in the specific case, as the production price was below the export price paid and the same product was subsequently offered by a German company at a price which was lower than the original Chinese export price.
   The applicant submits, further, that the Commission disregarded the fact that the products in issue are not ordinary energy-saving light bulbs within the meaning of the measure.
   The applicant also contends that the classification of the product by the German customs authorities was not, contrary to the Commission’s view, open to criticism, as there is no other classification number under which the product could have been entered.
   Moreover, the Commission paid no regard to the fact that there was at no time any danger of damage within the Community in the specific case, as the light products marketed by the applicant were marketed throughout Europe by the applicant alone and there was, for that reason, no other manufacturer in need of protection.
   In conclusion, it is submitted that it cannot be relevant, for purposes of entitlement to reimbursement, that the specific dumping margin has not disappeared; rather, what is decisive is that there never was any such dumping margin.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-100/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by the European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 European Medical Association v European Commission

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2014 by the European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 European Medical Association v European Commission
   (Case C-100/14 P)
   2014/C 129/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Medical Association Asbl (EMA) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and G. Gangemi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered on 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   EMA has brought an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment of 11 December 2013 in Case T-116/11 in so far as the General Court dismissed EMA’s action, brought under Articles 268 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 340 TFEU, for reimbursement of personnel costs for Contracts Nos 507760 (Dicoems) and 507126 (Cocoon).
   EMA relies on the following grounds of appeal:

                  First ground of appeal: Misinterpretation of the terms of the contracts and the legal rules, and manifest error in assessing the evidence
               EMA submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a misinterpretation of the terms of the contracts and of the applicable law and by a manifest error in assessing the evidence in so far as the General Court found that the Commission had correctly deduced that the costs invoiced but not yet paid had neither been borne by EMA nor entered in its accounts by the date on which the audit certificate was drawn up under the Belgian accounting rules.

                  Second ground of appeal: Manifest error in assessing the evidence and failure to state reasons
               EMA submits that various sections of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by serious procedural errors in that they contain no statement of reasons, inadequate statements of reasons, or contradictory statements of reasons. In addition, the General Court made several omissions or manifest errors in its assessment of the evidence produced during the proceedings. It can be inferred from the judgment under appeal that the General Court often failed to carry out an assessment specifically focusing on the evidence produced by EMA and failed de facto to rule on the heads of claim set out by that party in its application and reply. On a number of occasions, the General Court unconditionally relied on the results of the final audit report carried out on the Dicoems and Cocoon contracts on the Commission’s behalf, despite the fact that, in the main action, EMA specifically challenged those results.

                  Third ground of appeal: Misapplication of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract
               EMA submits that the General Court made an error in its assessment of Belgian law with regard to the application of the principle of good faith and sincere cooperation in performing a contract. In relation to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects, the Commission failed to fulfil its own monitoring obligations as laid down in Article 11.3.4 of the general conditions of each of the contracts in question, which makes specific reference to the Commission’s obligation to ensure that the project is correctly carried out from a scientific, technological and financial point of view. The General Court wrongly concluded that the Commission had not failed in its duty of supervision and that it had not infringed any specific provision of either contract and that it had thus been right in terminating immediately the two contracts relating to the Dicoems and Cocoon projects. The General Court also dismissed EMA’s claim for damages under those contracts.

                  Fourth ground of appeal: Breach of Community law principles
               EMA submits that the General Court committed several infringements of Community law — in particular, it alleges misapplication of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — and that it infringed EMA’s right of defence.


title: Case T-235/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Bavaria v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands beer market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Proof of the infringement — Access to the file — Fines — Principle of equal treatment — Reasonable period)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Bavaria v European Commission
   (Case T-235/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands beer market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Proof of the infringement - Access to the file - Fines - Principle of equal treatment - Reasonable period)
   2011/C 226/45
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Bavaria NV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented initially by O. Brouwer, D. Mes, A. Stoffer, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, A. Steffens and P. Schepens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A Nijenhuis, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents, and M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Netherlands beer market) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Bavaria NV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Bavaria in Article 3(c) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 20 712 375;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders Bavaria to pay two-thirds of its own costs and of those of the European Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Cases C-187/05, C-188/05, C-189/05 and C-190/05: References for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by orders of that court of 17 March 2005 in G. Agorastoudis and Others (Case C-187/05), I. Panos and Others (Case C-188/05), K. Kotsampougioukis and Others (Case C-189/05) and G. Akritopouolos and Others (Case C-190/05) v Goodyear Ellas AVEE

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/8

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by orders of that court of 17 March 2005 in G. Agorastoudis and Others (Case C-187/05), I. Panos and Others (Case C-188/05), K. Kotsampougioukis and Others (Case C-189/05) and G. Akritopouolos and Others (Case C-190/05) v Goodyear Ellas AVEE
   (Cases C-187/05, C-188/05, C-189/05 and C-190/05)
   (2005/C 171/15)
   Language of the case: Greek
   References have been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by orders of the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of Cassation) (Greece) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by G. Agorastoudis and Others, I. Panos and Others, K. Kotsampougioukis and Others and G. Akritopouolos and Others against Goodyear Ellas AVEE on the following question:
   Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment is closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer, under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

      (1)  OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.


title: Case T-357/14: Order of the General Court of 3 February 2016 — Experience Hendrix v OHIM — JH Licence (Jimi Hendrix)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/42

         Order of the General Court of 3 February 2016 — Experience Hendrix v OHIM — JH Licence (Jimi Hendrix)
   (Case T-357/14) (1)

   (2016/C 111/51)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-397/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — PAL-Bullermann v OHMI — Symaga (PAL)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/68

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — PAL-Bullermann v OHMI — Symaga (PAL)
   (Case T-397/15)
   (2015/C 302/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PAL-Bullermann GmbH (Friesoythe-Markhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Symaga, SA (Villarta de San Juan, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark ‘PAL’— Community trade mark registration No 690 750

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2015 in Case R 1626/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision so that the application for revocation is upheld in its entirety;

               —

               impose the costs to the defendant and the other party.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22(3)(4) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-378/01: Action brought on 2 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
8.12.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 348/13
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                                  79/409/EEC (1) and subsequent amendments thereto and
                                                                               other migratory species which regularly return to Italy,
                                                                               and by failing to send to the Commission all the
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                               appropriate information relevant to most of the special
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    protection areas classified by it, the Italian Republic has
      Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 laying                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1), (2) and
      down provisions concerning health protection of individ-
                                                                               (3) of that Directive.
      uals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation
      to medical exposure, and repealing Directive
      84/466/Euratom (1) or in any event by failing to com-
                                                                         —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      municate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main argument
Pleas in law and main argument
                                                                         In spite of the efforts made by the Italian authorities to
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to            fulfil their obligations under Article 4 of the Directive,
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by            the Commission finds that the classification of the special
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the            protection areas (SPA) still does not meet the requirements of
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period            that provision, either in so far as concerns the species of birds
expired on 13 May 2000 without Ireland having enacted the                mentioned in Annex 1 to the Directive or in so far as concerns
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred to            the other species of migratory birds which return regularly.
in the conclusions of the Commission.
(1) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 22.                                           In view of the present number and surface of the SPAs in Italy,
                                                                         it is clear that many bird species listed in Annex I to the
                                                                         Directive and many other migratory species are not adequately
                                                                         protected. Another factor which shows the inadequacy of the
                                                                         classification of the SPAs carried out by the Italian authorities
                                                                         is the fact that a large number of internationally important
                                                                         wetlands have not been designated. Moreover, a comparison
                                                                         between the number of ‘Important bird areas’ (IBA) and the
                                                                         number of IBAs partly or wholly covered by SPAs, so far as
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by the Commission                       certain autonomous regions and provinces are concerned,
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 shows that, notwithstanding that the situation has improved
                                                                         for a number of regions, there remain some substantial aspects
                                                                         in which they fall short, in particular in respect of some
                          (Case C-378/01)                                regions which are extremely important for wild birds.
                          (2001/C 348/23)
                                                                         Finally, the information sent by Italy to the Commission is in
                                                                         many ways inadequate. In particular, the ornithological data is
                                                                         often inadequate inasmuch as it is both incomplete and
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         inaccurate. Those deficiencies infringe Article 4(3) of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 October
                                                                         Directive and prevent the Commission from being able to
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         carry out its coordinating role in order to ensure that the
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                         SPAs form a coherent whole which meets the protection
acting as Agents.
                                                                         requirements of the affected species.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1979 L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
—     Declare that, by failing adequately to classify as special
      protection areas the most suitable zones, in terms of
      number and surface area, for the protection of those
      species mentioned in Annex I to Council Directive


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2000 in Case T-429/93: successors of Edmond Ropars v Council of the European Union (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into an undertaking to convert — Transfer of a holding)

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 May 2000
                         of 21 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-177/97: Odette Simon v Commission of the
in Case T-429/93: successors of Edmond Ropars v Council                                       European Communities (1)
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Claim to entitlement to the status of a member
                                                                                of the temporary staff)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into an undertaking to convert — Transfer of a                                               (2000/C 285/13)
                              holding)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 285/12)
                                                                           In Case T-177/97: Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                           represented by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and F. Parmentier, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the offices of the Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue
                                                                           Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-429/93: Madeleine Amélie Le Goff, residing in                    G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
Plounevezel, France, Liliane Ropars, residing in Rouziers-de-              Commission’s decision rejecting the application made by the
Touraine, France, Jacqueline Ropars, residing in Gleize, France,           applicant for the regularisation of her administrative situation
Marie-Christine Ropars, residing in Guerlesquin, France, Gisèle            and for the award of one euro as token compensation for the
Ropars, residing in Morlaix, France, Madeleine Ropars, residing            non-material damage caused to the applicant — the Court of
in Glomel, France, Louise Ropars, residing in Saint Laurent-du-            First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: M. Vilaras, sitting as
Maroni, French Guiana, Joseph Ropars, residing in Laniscat,                a single judge; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
France, as successors of Edmond Ropars, represented by                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2000, in which it:
C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by A. Delanoé, of the
Rennes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1.    Dismisses the application;
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch v Council of the
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Union (Agent: A.M. Colaert) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                   (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
Edmond Ropars as a result of his having been prevented
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred                                   of 20 June 2000
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
L 132, p. 11) — the Court (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos);                in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                        Union (1)
a judgment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
                                                                              (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)
1.    Refuses the application for a stay of proceedings;
                                                                                (2000/C 285/14)
2.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
3.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           In Case T-597/97: Euromin SA, established in Geneva, Switzer-
                                                                           land, represented initially by D. Horovitz, J. Bäverbrant,
(1) OJ C 217 of 20.8.91.
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and N. Stockwell, of the Brussels Bar, and
                                                                           by N. Robson, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Horovitz,
                                                                           G. Vandersanden, N. Stockwell, M.E. Pitt and S. Sheppard,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Case T-253/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Desarrollo y Aplicaciones Fitotécnicas v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Desarrollo y Aplicaciones Fitotécnicas v Council and Commission
   (Case T-253/07)
   (2007/C 211/91)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Desarrollo y Aplicaciones Fitotécnicas, S.A. (Córdoba, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present proceedings for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of one million one hundred and sixteen thousand six hundred and sixty-seven euros (EUR 1 116 667);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Removal from the register of C-328/95

text:
27 . 9 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/27
          Removal from the register of C-328/95 (')                           Removal from the register of C-64/97 ( ! )
                          ( 97/C 295/54 )                                                       ( 97/C 295/55 )
By order of 3 July 1997 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register                By order of 3 July 1997 the President of the Court of
of Case C-328/95 : Commission of the European                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities v. Italian Republic .                                    removal from the register of Case C-64/97: Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
H OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                     o OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 15 January 2002 in Case C-182/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wels): Lutz GmbH and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 84/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The Commission of the European Communities was competent,              the application brought before that court by Lutz GmbH and
      under Article 149(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of           others on the validity of Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive
      accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland          68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
      and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties          which, for the protection of the interests of members and
      on which the European Union is founded, to adopt the measures          others, are required by Member States of companies within the
      provided for in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC)                meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,
      No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on transitional measures                with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
      to be adopted on account of the accession of Austria, Finland          the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
      and Sweden in respect of trade in agricultural products.               and Article 47 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                             25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the
2.    Examination of the second question has disclosed no factor of          annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 of Regulation       p. 11),the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of proportionality            President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rappor-
      and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.        teur), Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar:
                                                                             H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
3.    The term ‘holder’ of surplus stock, within the meaning of              15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
      Article 4 of Regulation No 3108/94, refers to a person who
      has authority to place the stored products on the market and
      thereby realise a profit.                                              The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
                                                                             to answer the questions submitted by the Landesgericht Wels in its
4.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3108/94 must be interpreted as           decision of 9 May 2000.
      meaning that, in the case of imports of Tunisian olive oil, the
      ‘import charge’ applicable in the Community of Twelve on
      31 December 1994 is the one provided for in Annex I to                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94 of 29 December
      1994 fixing the minimum levies on the importation of olive oil
      and levies on the importation of other olive oil sector products.
5.    Examination of the fifth question has disclosed no factor of
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4(3) of Regulation
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                22 January 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio &
                           (First Chamber)                                   C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli
                                                                                infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)(1)
                          15 January 2002
                                                                             (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
in Case C-182/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body
    the Landesgericht Wels): Lutz GmbH and Others (1)                        providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether
                                                                                such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual
accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of
        companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                                                  (2002/C 84/42)
                            (2002/C 84/41)                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-218/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-182/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                EC by the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
by the Landesgericht Wels (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in              in the proceedings pending before that court between Cisal di


title: Case F-139/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Kurrer v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/39

         Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Kurrer v Commission
   (Case F-139/06)
   (2007/C 20/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Christian Kurrer (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Tribunal is asked to:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission to approve the applicant a probationary official with effect from 1 April 2006 inasmuch as that decision fixes his grade and step as A*6/2 and does not take into account the points he accumulated as a ‘research’ temporary agent;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 16 January 2004, the applicant entered the service of the Commission as a ‘research’ temporary agent in Grade A7. As a successful candidate in Open Competition COM/A/3/02 published on 25 July 2002 to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in career bracket A7/A6, he was appointed a probationary official in Grade A*6.
   In view of the undertaking made by the Commission to extend the effects of possible annulment in pending cases concerning Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the applicant confines himself to relying on breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in relation to former colleagues, also ‘research’ temporary agents, who had been successful in internal competitions and, when established as officials, retained their grade and accumulated points.
   The applicant further asserts in so far as is necessary, that Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful, to the extent that it fails to comply with the above-mentioned principle and the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-307/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-307/12) (1)

   2013/C 63/29
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-621/16: Action brought on 29 August 2016 — České dráhy v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/46

         Action brought on 29 August 2016 — České dráhy v Commission
   (Case T-621/16)
   (2016/C 392/60)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins ordering an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of materials obtained during a previous inspection at the business premises of České dráhy which was carried out on the basis of an illegal decision. The European Commission could not use the materials thus obtained, not even for the adoption of the decision contested by the present action.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the materials on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted were obtained by the European Commission during a previous inspection, outside the framework of the subject of the inspection, and hence illegally.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the associated inspection by the European Commission constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s private sphere. The contested decision was adopted by the European Commission without legally available materials, the Commission defined the subject of the inspection unacceptably broadly, and it proceeded beyond the bounds of its investigative powers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately delimit the subject and purpose of the inspection, inter alia in that it defines unacceptably broadly the period of time to which the inspection was to relate, and does not state proper reasons.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that because of the contested decision and the associated inspection there was an unacceptable interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (or Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).


28.8.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/45
In the applicant’s view, Directive 92/12/EEC is contrary to:                   Removal from the register of Case T-538/93 (1)
— the Community principle of the rule of law, inasmuch as
    it contains contradictory and unclear rules;                                               (1999/C 246/90)
— the Treaty objectives in the establishment of the internal
    market under Article 14 EC (ex Article 7a);                                           (Language of the case: English)
— the prohibition under Article 25 EC (ex Article 12) of
    customs duties and charges having equivalent effect;                By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance
— the prohibitions under Article 28 EC (ex Article 30) and              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    Article 29 EC (ex Article 34);                                      the register of Case T-538/93: Joh Harris v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
— Article 93 EC (ex Article 99), authorising harmonisation              ties.
    of indirect taxation;
— the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as it is not
                                                                        (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
    suited to the internal market;
— the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;
— a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as
    freedom to exercise a profession, right of ownership, and
    commercial and economic freedom.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-548/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/91)
       Removal from the register of Case T-278/93 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/88)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       By order of 1 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                        Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Fourth                   European Communities has ordered the removal from the
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            register of Case T-548/93: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Council of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the European Communities.
the register of Case T-278/93: David Alwyn Jones and
Mary Bridget Jones v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
(1) OJ C 165 of 2.7.1992.
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases                              Removal from the register of Case T-72/95 (1)
            T-294/934, T-392/93 and T-413/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/92)
                        (1999/C 246/89)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 30 March 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance            By order of 17 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the register of Cases T-294/93: Sean Coughlan v Council                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-72/95:
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v
Communities and T-413/93: Patrick Heffernan v Council of                Commission of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.
(1) OJ C 158 of 10.6.1993 and C 197 of 21.7.1993.


title: Case C-573/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — National support scheme providing for the award of tradable green certificates for installations producing electricity from renewable energy sources — Obligation for electricity suppliers and certain users to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain number of green certificates — Refusal to award green certificates for electricity production installations located outside the Member State in question — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 2, second paragraph, point (k), and Article 3(3) — Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping — Sweden) — Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten
   (Case C-573/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - National support scheme providing for the award of tradable green certificates for installations producing electricity from renewable energy sources - Obligation for electricity suppliers and certain users to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain number of green certificates - Refusal to award green certificates for electricity production installations located outside the Member State in question - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 2, second paragraph, point (k), and Article 3(3) - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU))
   2014/C 292/04
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ålands Vindkraft AB

      Defendant: Energimyndigheten

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Point (k) of the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to establish a support scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the award of tradable certificates to producers of green electricity solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of that State and which places suppliers and certain electricity users under an obligation to deliver annually to the competent authority a certain number of those certificates, corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of electricity that they have supplied or consumed.

               2)

               Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the award of tradable certificates to green electricity producers solely in respect of green electricity produced in the territory of the Member State concerned and which places suppliers and certain electricity users under an obligation to surrender annually to the competent authority a certain number of those certificates, corresponding to a proportion of the total volume of electricity that they have supplied or used, failing which they must pay a specific fee.

               3)

               It is for the national court to determine, taking into account all relevant factors — which may include the EU legislative context in which the legislation at issue in the main proceedings arises — whether, in terms of its territorial scope, that legislation meets the requirements of the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2005 in Case T-142/03 Fost Plus VZW v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Action brought by a legal person — Act of individual concern to it — Decision 2003/82/EC — Targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste — Directive 94/62/EC — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 February 2005
   in Case T-142/03 Fost Plus VZW v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action brought by a legal person - Act of individual concern to it - Decision 2003/82/EC - Targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste - Directive 94/62/EC - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 132/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-142/03: Fost Plus VZW, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by P. Wytinck and H. Viaene, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and M. Konstantidinis, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/82/EC of 29 January 2003 confirming measures notified by Belgium pursuant to Article 6(6) of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 31, p. 32) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed, in deliberation, of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21. 6.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-29/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 8, 11(1) and 15(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for the award of public service contracts — Contract relating to waste disposal — Absence of call for tenders)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 November 2005
   in Case C-29/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 8, 11(1) and 15(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedure for the award of public service contracts - Contract relating to waste disposal - Absence of call for tenders)
   (2006/C 10/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-29/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner) v Republic of Austria (Agent: M. Fruhmann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, in that the contract for the disposal of the town of Mödling's waste was entered into without complying with the procedural and advertising rules laid down by Article 8, in conjunction with Articles 11(1) and 15(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-41/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — Foodstuffs to which vitamins or mineral salts have been added — National legislation making their marketing subject to there being a nutritional need — Measures having equivalent effect — Justification — Public health — Proportionality)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 December 2004
   in Case C-41/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) - Foodstuffs to which vitamins or mineral salts have been added - National legislation making their marketing subject to there being a nutritional need - Measures having equivalent effect - Justification - Public health - Proportionality)
   (2005/C 19/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-41/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 February 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. van Lier and H.M.H. Speyart) against Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying an administrative practice under which foodstuffs for everyday consumption fortified with vitamin A (in the form of retinoids), vitamin D, folic acid, selenium, copper or zinc which are lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States may be marketed in the Netherlands, when they are neither substitution products nor reconstituted foodstuffs within the meaning of Article 1(1)(c) and (d) of the Warenwetbesluit Toevoeging micro-voedingsstoffen aan levensmiddelen (Decree implementing the Warenwet, on the addition of micronutrients to foodstuffs) of 24 May 1996 only if that enrichment meets a nutritional need in the Netherlands population and, in addition, without ascertaining whether those fortified foodstuffs might be a substitute for foodstuffs already marketed for which the addition of those nutrients is mandatory, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case F-20/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2014 — Moës v Commission

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2014 — Moës v Commission
   (Case F-20/13) (1)

   2014/C 93/50
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013, p. 48.


C 71/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.3.1999
      Removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-262/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 71/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/44)
By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal                    By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Tribunal): Secretary of State for the Home Department v             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Mustafa Saglam.                                                     removal from the register of Case C-262/98: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
         (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
                    of 15 December 1998                             2. The defendants are to pay the costs.
in Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                       3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                       Communities (1)                                  Ireland is to bear its own costs.
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
Community Ð Milk Ð Producers having entered into                    (1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.
non-marketing       or    conversion     undertakings      Ð
Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
                       (1999/C 71/45)
               (Language of the case: English)                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
In Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse, residing in Netherbury
(United Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green,                                        of 15 December 1998
Graham Hughes and Martin Rawstorne, Barristers, and                 in Case T-277/93: John Meakin v Council of the
Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,                 European Union and Commission of the European
Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of                                         Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the                (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey,                  Community Ð Milk Producers having entered into
GeÂrard Rozet and Hans-Jürgen Rabe), supported by                   non-marketing       or     conversion    undertakings     Ð
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
(Agent: John Colahan) Ð application for compensation                            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of                                         (1999/C 71/46)
Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of            In Case T-277/93: John Meakin, residing in Leigh (United
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                     Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1989, p. 13), as                      Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,
supplemented by         Commission Regulation (EEC)                 Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11               the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended             Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,                        European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey and
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.        Hans-Jürgen Rabe) Ð application for compensation
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of                 Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
which is as follows:                                                the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from


title: Case C-451/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria)) — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exemption — Leasing and letting of immovable property — Letting of fishing rights)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria)) — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel
   (Case C-451/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(b) - Exemption - Leasing and letting of immovable property - Letting of fishing rights)
   (2008/C 22/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gabriele Walderdorff

      Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel
   Re:
   REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien — Interpretation of Article 13B(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption from VAT —Supply of services connected with immovable property — Letting and granting for consideration of fishing rights.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted to mean that the grant for consideration, under a contract of let for a period of 10 years, of the right to fish, by the landowner in waters owned by that person, and by the holder of fishing rights in publicly owned waters, does not constitute either a leasing or a letting of immovable property, inasmuch as that grant does not confer the right to occupy the immovable property concerned and to exclude any other person from it.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-370/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Patrick Holding v OHIM — Cassera (Patrick Exclusive)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/36

         Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Patrick Holding v OHIM — Cassera (Patrick Exclusive)
   (Case T-370/07)
   (2007/C 283/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cassera SpA. (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The applicant requests that the decision taken by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 26 July 2007 in case R1447/2005-2 be annulled;

               —

               that the defendant is ordered to register the contested trademark;

               —

               that the defendant pays the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Patrick Holding ApS

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark ‘PATRICK EXCLUSIVE’ for goods in class 25 — application No 2 946 424

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cassera SpA

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘G. Patrick’ for goods in class and 25 and the national and international word mark ‘G. Patrick’ for goods in classes 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-618/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Banco Español de Crédito, S.A. v Joaquín Calderón Camino

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Banco Español de Crédito, S.A. v Joaquín Calderón Camino
   (Case C-618/10)
   2011/C 95/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Banco Español de Crédito, S.A.

      Respondent: Joaquín Calderón Camino

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to Community law, in particular the law on consumers and users, for a national court to avoid giving a ruling of its own motion and in limine litis or at any stage during the proceedings on whether or not a term concerning interest on late payments (in this case 29 %) in a consumer credit agreement is void and on whether or not that term should be modified. May the court, without prejudicing the rights of the consumer under Community law, decide to leave any evaluation of such a term to the initiative of the debtor (by means of the appropriate procedural objection)?

               2.

               In the light of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 2 of Directive 2009/22/EEC, (2) what is the correct interpretation of Article 83 of Real Decreto Legislativo No 1/2007 (Royal Legislative Decree No 1/2007) (formerly Article 8 of Ley General No 26/1984, de 19 julio, para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usarios) (General Law No 26/1984 of 19 July 1984 for the protection of consumers and users) for those purposes? What is the scope in that regard of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC where it provides that unfair contract terms ‘shall not be binding on the consumer’?

               3.

               Is it possible to exclude judicial review of a court’s own motion and in limine litis where the applicant clearly states in his application the rate of interest on late payments, the amount of the claim, including the principal and interest, the contractual penalties and the costs, the interest rate and the period of time for which that interest is demanded (or a statement that statutory interest is automatically added to the principle under the law of the Member State of origin), the cause of the action, including a description of the facts relied on as the basis of the claim and the interest demanded, and it is clearly stated whether it concerns statutory or contractual interest, capitalisation of interest or the interest rate for the loan, whether it has been calculated by the applicant and the number of percentage points above the Central Bank base rate, as is the case with the Community regulation on the European order for payment procedure? (3)

               4.

               In the absence of their transposition, do Articles 5(1)(l) and (m) and 6(1)(i) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (4) where they refer to ‘arrangements for its adjustment’, and Article 10(2)(1), where it refers to ‘arrangements for its adjustment’, require the financial institution specifically to include and to highlight in the contract (not in the body of the text, in an undifferentiated manner) as ‘pre-contractual information’ references to the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments, in the event of default, set out clearly and in a prominent place, and the elements taken into account when determining them (financial costs, recovery costs etc.) and to include a warning regarding the consequences connected with those cost elements?

               5.

               Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/48/EEC include the requirement to notify the early termination of a credit or loan agreement which gives rise to the charging of interest on late payments? Is the principle of the prohibition on unjustified enrichment contained in Article 7 of Directive 2008/48/EEC applicable where the credit institution seeks not only the recovery of the goods (the loan capital), but also the application of an especially high rate of interest on late payments?

               6.

               In the absence of any transposing provision and in the light of Article 11(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (5) may the court find of its own motion that it is an unfair practice to include in a contract a term concerning interest on late payments?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

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

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


title: Case F-105/12: Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/70

         Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-105/12)
   2013/C 26/143
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-44/09 Knöll v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 20 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.


title: Case T-167/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Far Eastern New Century v Council (Dumping — Imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Taiwan — Determination of the dumping margin — Asymmetrical method of calculation — Export pricing pattern differing according to purchasers and time periods — Full degree of dumping margin cannot be reflected by symmetrical methods of calculation — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Far Eastern New Century v Council
   (Case T-167/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Taiwan - Determination of the dumping margin - Asymmetrical method of calculation - Export pricing pattern differing according to purchasers and time periods - Full degree of dumping margin cannot be reflected by symmetrical methods of calculation - Duty to state reasons)
   2011/C 160/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Far Eastern New Century Corp., formerly Far Eastern Textile Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz and, subsequently, H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Far Eastern New Century Corp. to bear its own costs, together with those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-145/12 P: Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH v European Commission, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG (Appeals — State aid — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Opening of the formal investigation procedure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/9

         Order of the Court of 15 November 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH v European Commission, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG
   (Case C-145/12 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Opening of the formal investigation procedure - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 108/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Dammann de Chapto, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG, Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG (represented by: C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2012 in Case T-407/09 Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, firstly, annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that certain contracts concluded by the applicant concerning the sale of dwellings as part of the privatisation of public dwellings in Neubrandenburg do not come within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, secondly, judgment establishing the Commission’s failure to act for the purposes of Article 232 EC in that the Commission failed to state its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Infringement of Articles 263(4) and 265 TFEU and the right to an effective judicial remedy — Insufficient statement of reasons by the General Court

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

               2.

               Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, la Commission européenne, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG et Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.