title: Case T-70/02: Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and the Council for the European Union

text:
C 144/50               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
the applicant is the result of numerous errors on the part of           Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe
the defendant concerning the determination and assessment               Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and
of the facts for the purposes of calculating the fine. In addition,                  the Council for the European Union
the defendant infringed numerous fundamental principles of
Community law.
                                                                                (Case T-70/02)
The applicant claims that the Guidelines (1) infringe                                            (2002/C 144/101)
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. Its complaint basically
concerns the flat-rate determination of the amount of fines
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines. In the                                  (Language of the case: English)
applicant’s view, the amount of fines should be calculated only
in proportion to turnover, and the flat-rate determination
provided for in the Guidelines in respect of smaller undertak-
ings chiefly results in fines which are unreasonable and
disproportionate. Consequently, Article 3(b) of the contested           An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
decision is likewise unlawful.                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2002 by
                                                                        Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V., represented by Mr Koen Van
                                                                        Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP,
In addition, the applicant maintains that, even assuming that           Brussels (Belgium).
the Guidelines are lawful, the defendant misapplied them. In
particular, the defendant misjudged the constituent element of
the contravention which is the seriousness of the act. It should
have had regard to the fact that the contravention was only             The applicant claims that the Court should:
moderately serious and had little effect on the market, and to
the fact that the undertakings concerned did not adhere to the
                                                                        —     order the partial annulment of Decision 2455/2001/EC
price agreements. The fact that only a very small proportion of
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council dated
the applicant’s total turnover was affected by the contravention
                                                                              20 November 2001 establishing a list of priority sub-
constitutes an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation
                                                                              stances in the field of water policy and amending Directive
No 17/62, and, in addition, the limited economic efficiency of
                                                                              2000/60/EC, so as to remove diuron and isoproturon
the applicant was wrongly left out of account.
                                                                              from the measure;
                                                                        —     order the Defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
The applicant argues that, in any event, the amount of the fine
                                                                              these proceedings.
is contrary to the general principles of proportionality and
reasonableness, and that the failure to take into account the
small product turnover of the applicant as compared with the
total turnover resulted in an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment. Quite different fines were imposed on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
undertakings having a totally similar strength in the market.
                                                                        The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
Lastly, the applicant maintains that the calculation of the
                                                                        products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
penalty by the defendant infringes Article 7 of the ECHR,
                                                                        products’ active substances, diuron and isoproturon, in the list
inasmuch as the financial penalty imposed on the applicant
                                                                        of priority substances in the field of water policy. This list is
reflects a range of penalisation which has twice been decisively
                                                                        established by the defendants in execution of Directive 2000/
extended since the termination of the contravention. The
                                                                        60/EC (1). The products listed are considered to present a risk
systematic alteration of the practice followed by the defendant,
                                                                        to or via the aquatic environment and their emissions must be
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines and the
                                                                        reduced. Furthermore, the contested decision indicates some
change in the method of determining fines at the end of 2001,
                                                                        of the applicant’s products as priority substances ’under
constitutes an extension of the range of penalisation which
                                                                        review’, which will lead, according to the applicant, to a
cannot be applied to conduct which occurred before that
                                                                        classification as priority hazardous substances. These substanc-
extension took place.
                                                                        es pose a higher risk for the aquatic environment and their
                                                                        emissions must be eliminated.
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC     The applicant objects to the procedure and the methodology
    Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
                                                                        used by the defendants when adopting the contested Decision.
                                                                        To establish the contested list, the defendants used a summary
                                                                        procedure as laid down in Article 16 (2), second paragraph, of
                                                                        Directive 2000/60.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/51
The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are                 written reprimands within the meaning of Article 43(i) of the
largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW Agro-              Conditions of Employment by a valid decision of the Executive
Sciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and               Board.
Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).
(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
    Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
    22.12.2000, p. 1)                                                   Action brought on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
                                                                        against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
                                                                                (Case T-85/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/103)
Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
           Voigt against the European Central Bank
                         (Case T-78/02)                                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2002 by Pedro Diaz S.A.
                       (2002/C 144/102)                                 of Carretera de Cartagena-La Palma, Km 2,4, Cartagena (Spain),
                                                                        represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of 16 January 2002 of the Third Board
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                       of Appeal rejecting application number 199 265 for
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                registration of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to
on 19 March 2002 by Stephan-Harald Voigt, residing in                         describe ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29;
Langenselbold (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
                                                                        —     declare that application number 199 265 for registration
                                                                              of a Community trade mark CASTILLO to describe
                                                                              ‘cheeses’ falling within Class 29 should be allowed;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
—     annul the written reprimand issued to the applicant by                  vener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      the defendant pursuant to Article 43(i) of the Conditions
      of Employment by letter of 1 March 2002;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-          Pedro Diaz S.A.
                                                                        munity trade mark
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Community trade mark            CASTILLO — application no 199
                                                                        applied for Word mark:          265 for products falling within
                                                                                Classes 29 and 30
In support of his application, the applicant claims that the            Proprietor of the trade         Granja Castello S.A.
written reprimand is invalid on the ground that general                 mark or sign invoked in
procedural principles were not respected. The reprimand is              the opposition pro-
based on incorrect assumptions and the applicant was, inter             cedure:
alia, not granted an adequate hearing in the procedure.
Moreover, the defendant’s conduct infringes European data-              Trade mark or sign being        Word mark with graphic elements
protection rules.                                                       opposed:                        ‘EL CASTILLO’ registered for
                                                                                products in Class 29 and word
                                                                                mark with graphic elements ‘EL
The applicant also disputes that the Vice-President of the                                              CASTILLO NADO 1’ for products
defendant had been granted the general authority to decide on                                           in Class 30


title: Case T-183/07: Action brought on 28 May 2007 — Poland v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/41

         Action brought on 28 May 2007 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-183/07)
   (2007/C 155/75)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, in whole or in part, Commission decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               give judgment in Polish in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Poland.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in which the Commission decided that certain aspects of the Polish National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for 2008-2012, notified to the Commission on 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Articles 9(1) and (3), 10 and 13(2) of and the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. That decision sets the average annual allocation of emission allowances in Poland for 2008-2012 at approximately 208.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It thereby reduces by 26.7 % the carbon dioxide emission limit of 284.6 million tonnes in 2008-2012 proposed by Poland in the national allocation plan for emission allowances notified to the Commission.
   The applicant submits, as grounds of the application, that the Commission, by taking the decision after the expiry of the three-month period for rejection of the national allocation plan notified by Poland in whole or in one aspect of it, infringed Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. The applicant thereby complains that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements and exceeded its powers.
   The applicant moreover complains that the Commission, when assessing the national allocation plan for allowances for 2008-2012 submitted by Poland, unjustifiably failed to assess the facts submitted by Poland in the national allocation plan and replaced an analysis of those facts by an analysis of its own facts obtained as a result of the inconsistent application of the model of economic analysis chosen by the Commission, and thereby infringed Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and criterion 3 set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. The applicant thereby complains that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements.
   In addition, the applicant complains that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements, and asserts that, by failing to take account when adopting the contested decision of international decisions binding on the Community (in particular the Kyoto Protocol), it infringed criteria 1, 2 and 12 set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.
   The applicant further criticises the Commission for unjustifiably limiting, in the contested decision, the possibility of transferring CO2 emission allowances from the first period (2005-2007) to the second (2008-2012), thereby infringing Articles 9(3) and 13(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC. The applicant thereby raises a complaint of exceeding of powers by the Commission.
   The applicant further complains that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in connection with the fact that the applicant did not have before it, before the decision was taken, the actual grounds on which the Commission proposed to take its decision. Consequently, according to the applicant, it was not in a position inter alia to assess the compatibility of the contested decision with Article 175(2)(c) EC in conjunction with Article 7(1) EC.
   Finally, the applicant submits that, by taking the decision without any previous consultations with it, and also by not taking Poland's specific energy balance into account, the Commission may by the contested decision affect the applicant's energy security, and it thereby exceeded its powers.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case T-214/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Rehbein v OHIM — Dias Martinho (OUTBURST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OUTBURST — Earlier national word mark OUTBURST — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Rehbein v OHIM — Dias Martinho (OUTBURST)
   (Case T-214/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OUTBURST - Earlier national word mark OUTBURST - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2012/C 138/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG (Glinde, Germany) (represented by: T. Lampel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and P. Geroulakos, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Carlos Dias Martinho (Le Plessis-Trévise, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1261/2007-2) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG and, on the other hand, Hervé Dias Martinho and Manuel Carlos Dias Martinho.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 March 2008 (Case R 1261/2007-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-685/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/30

         Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-685/16)
   (2016/C 410/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘B2B SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 016 224

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 in Case R 244/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016;

               —

               annul EUIPO’s decision at first instance dated 9 December 2015 by which the reference mark was refused in its entirety;

               —

               amend the earlier decisions allowing the grant of the trade mark of the applicant;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-76/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014  — Fasano v Commission

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2014 — Fasano v Commission
   (Case F-76/13) (1)

   2014/C 235/48
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5/10/2013, p. 7.


title: Case T-110/08: Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black bottle)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/25

         Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black bottle)
   (Case T-110/08)
   (2008/C 116/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Freixenet SA (Sant Sadurní d'Anoia, Spain) (represented by F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 November 2007 and, doing what that Board of Appeal should have done, decide that the application for Community trade mark No 32 540 satisfies the conditions for publication in accordance with Article 40 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 November 2007;

               —

               In any case, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a frosted matt black bottle for goods in class 33 (application No 32 540)

      Decision of the Examiner: Reject the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal; decision taken following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-188/04 Freixenet v OHIM (shape of a frosted matt black bottle)

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and (3) and Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 and of the obligation to state reasons, to the extent that:

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to hear the applicant's observations with regard to the Board's different factual assessment;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to specify the documents on which it bases its decision;

               —

               The type of appearance of the bottle in question is original and differs from the usual types existing on 1 April 1996;

               —

               In any case, the trade mark in question has acquired a distinctive character in the Community by usage.


title: Case T-192/17: Action brought on 24 March 2017 — RZ v EESC and Committee of the Regions

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 24 March 2017 — RZ v EESC and Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-192/17)
   (2017/C 178/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant him access to the documents in the file for the proceedings in Case [confidential] (1) relating to the amicable settlement of that case, and allow him to file observations in that regard;

               —

               annul the joint decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) to transfer [confidential] to the Directorate for Translation as a result of the agreement made to that effect between 14 January and 4 February 2016, in so far as that agreement made provision both for that transfer and for [the person concerned] to continue to perform her duties [confidential];

               —

               annul the decision, adopted on 11 May 2016 by the CoR following that agreement, for [confidential] to be transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties [confidential];

               —

               annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the CoR of 13 December 2016 and of the Secretary-General of the EESC of 19 December 2016 in so far as those decisions confirm the instructions given to the applicant on 30 June 2016 by the Directorate for Translation in order to implement the CoR’s decision of 11 May 2016;

               —

               order the EESC and the CoR to pay jointly a sum of EUR 25 000 to the applicant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the damage to his professional reputation, his authority and his health resulting from the contested decisions;

               —

               order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the applicant was not heard before a decision was made by joint agreement by the EESC and the CoR to transfer an official, and/or the applicant was not notified immediately, in writing, of the decision taken by the CoR in implementation of that agreement, while the reasons for that decision were not comprehensively and clearly explained to him.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers and abuse of process, in that the official concerned was transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties within the language unit in question.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the interests of the service, in that the reason for the transfer was to bring to an end an untenable situation or to protect the official against the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations, in that the Secretaries-General of the EESC confirmed the order given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to continue to assign tasks, or to have tasks assigned, to the official in question.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to have tasks assigned to the official in question that were equivalent, in terms of volume and importance, to those entrusted to translators with a similar level of experience, and to have her translations revised in a comparable manner.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the decisions on leave, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to set out on the same day, or on the following day at the latest, confining himself to overriding reasons, the grounds in the interests of the service for refusing a request for leave made by the official in question.

      (1)  Confidential data redacted.


title: Case T-298/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-298/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/123)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case F-152/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/30

         Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-152/12)
   2013/C 71/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 March 2012 concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2012 directed against the decision fixing the calculation of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the EU pension scheme;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Alan Hick against Economic and Social Committee (Case T-176/97)

text:
No C 252/34          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Alan Hick against                  grade, to the President's cabinet for the duration of the
              Economic and Social Committee                          President's mandate . The candidate selected never in fact
                        Case T-176/97)                               took up the post of Head of the division in question, the
                                                                     applicant having performed those duties, first as deputy
                        ( 97/C 252/74 )                              and then as acting Head.
               (Language of the case: French)                        In the circumstances of the case, the applicant refers to the
                                                                     case-law following from the Court's judgment in Case
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of               T-272/94 Brulant ( ] ).
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June             (') Case T-272/94 Brûlant v. European Parliament [ 1996 ] ECR-SC
1997 by Alan Hick, residing in Brussels, represented by                  II-1397 .
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Odette Simon against
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision to promote Wolfgang Junck to                                            ( Case T-l 77/97 )
    Grade A 3 and appoint him to the post of Head of the                                       ( 97/C 252/75 )
    Division for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural
    Affairs in Directorate B — Consultative Work,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature
    for that post,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     by Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg, represented
                                                                     by Ariane Tornel, Thierry Demaseure and Fran^oise
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
                                                                     Rue de Cess&nge.
The applicant, a Grade A 4 official of the Economic and
Social Committee, challenges the appointing authority's
refusal to appoint him to the post of Head of one of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant's divisions .
                                                                     — annul the decision refusing to regularize the
The applicant points out that he has been acting as Head                  applicant's administrative position as from May 1966,
of the Division in question since April 1996, following the
death of the previous Head, and that on 18 June 1996 the
defendant published the disputed vacancy notice. By the              — order the defendant to pay ECU 1 by way of symbolic
contested decision, the appointing authority appointed to                 compensation for the non-material damage suffered,
the post in question another person who never took up
the post. That person was subsequently seconded to the               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
'Directorate-General for Consultative Work, Specialized
Department for Delegations' and seconded in the interest
of the service to the post of Chef de Cabinet in the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Secretariat of the President of the Economic and Social
Committee. Finally, by decision of 23 December 1996, the
applicant was called upon to carry out as acting Head the            The applicant states that she entered the Commission's
duties attaching to the post in issue in this case .                 service in May 1966 . There she remained without
                                                                     interruption until 25 October 1995 . She points out that,
                                                                     although most of her contracts were concluded through
In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of             the device of intermediary companies and 'organes de
Article 4, first paragraph, and Article 27 of the Staff              tutelle', she always performed her duties for the
Regulations, and misuse of powers. In particular, he                 Commission and under the direct authority of its officials,
considers that the purpose of the contested decision was             in accordance with detailed rules laid down by the
neither to fill the vacant post nor to secure for the                Commission . Her work contributed to the attainment of
institution the services of an official of the highest               the objectives for which the ECSC Treaty made the
standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. In his view, the      Commission responsible and was equivalent to a budgeted
decision was intended to promote another person to                   post. The duties entrusted to her were permanent defined
Grade A 3 with the sole aim of seconding him, at his new             duties of Community public service.


title: Case F-123/14: Action brought on 27 October 2014  — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/59

         Action brought on 27 October 2014 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-123/14)
   (2015/C 007/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions to apply a solidarity levy from 1 January 2014 to the applicant’s remuneration and not to adjust his remuneration in respect of the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare that Regulation No 1023/2013 is inapplicable in so far as it provides for the suspension from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 of the method of adjustment of remunerations fixed in Article XI of the Staff Regulations, while reintroducing, in respect of the same period, a ‘solidarity’ levy of 6 %;

               —

               As a result, annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Case T-832/16: Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Celio International v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/52

         Action brought on 25 November 2016 — Celio International v Commission
   (Case T-832/16)
   (2017/C 030/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Celio International SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium (1);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the decision alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the decision qualifies the purported scheme as granting a selective advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, in the alternative alleging violation of Article 107 TFEU, infringement of legitimate expectations and of the proportionality principle, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)


title: Case T-201/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — IVBN v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/49

         Action brought on 30 April 2010 — IVBN v Commission
   (Case T-201/10)
   2010/C 179/85
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations. The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its application.
   First, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) Articles 106(2) TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission’s presentation of the facts concerning the obligation on the part of housing corporations to charge rents below the appropriate rental rates set by the State is inaccurate. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the definition of the target group for social housing provision is unsubstantiated and incorrect. The Commission also erred in failing to set an objective limit on the construction costs of housing that is to be funded by aid and on the intrinsic quality of such rental accommodation, as reflected in the amount of rent. Furthermore, the safeguards against overcompensation are inadequate, with the result that the Commission is also in breach of Article 5 of the Decision relating to services of general economic interest. (2) Finally, the applicant submits in that regard that the Commission failed to address the applicant’s complaint concerning the role of the Woningsinvesteringsfonds (Housing Investment Fund) and the Nederlandse Waterschapsbank.
   Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1(c) of Regulation No 659/1999, Article 4(1) of Regulation No 794/2004 (3) and the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to carry out a thorough and detailed examination and to establish that all or at least a substantial part of the aid to housing corporations referred to in case E 2/2005 is to be regarded as new aid instead of as existing aid.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Articles 106(2) TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU by neglecting to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 659/1999, as a result of which the applicant’s procedural rights under those provisions have also been infringed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (notified under document number C(2005) 2673) (OJ 2005 L 312, p. 67).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC)No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).


title: Case T-324/06: Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Município de Gondomar v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/73

         Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Município de Gondomar v Commission
   (Case T-324/06)
   (2006/C 326/151)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Município de Gondomar (Gondomar, Portugal) (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, D. Choussey and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/07 — Redevelopment of Grande Porto/Sul — Subsistema de Gondomar (Portugal) by Commission Decision C (95) 3281 of 18 December 1995, cancelling the total amount of the assistance of EUR 7 778 535 allocated to the project and ordering the applicant to reimburse the sum of EUR 6 222 828, is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, is contrary to Regulation No 1164/94 (1) and to the principles of proportionality and legal certainty and, in consequence,

               —

               principally, annulment of the contested decision or,

               —

               in the alternative, annulment in part of the contested decision and a declaration that the applicant is entitled to the whole of the Cohesion Fund financing, except for the sum of EUR 537 863;

               —

               an order that the Commission should bear its own costs and also those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action seeks annulment of the contested decision pursuant to Article 230 EC, in so far as that decision cancels the total amount of the assistance of EUR 7 778 535 allocated to Project No 95/10/61/017 and orders the applicant to reimburse the sum of EUR 6 222 828.
   In the contested decision, the Commission claims that the applicant committed irregularities, with regard to Regulation No 1164794 and Commission Decision C (95) 3281 which granted the European Community financing for the project. Those irregularities relate in essence to payments made outside the period of eligibility, unjustified expenditure and the fact that the applicant has not completed the works within the period fixed.
   First, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is not based on sufficient reasons and that it is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. That is because the Commission on several occasions based the contested decision on unclear criteria and rejected some of the applicant's arguments without providing grounds for its conclusions.
   Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment of the facts, in that:

               —

               due justification has been produced for all amounts put forward by the applicant;

               —

               the Commission has displayed a lack of clarity in determining the amounts to be justified, not having also examined the evidence presented by the applicant to justify that expenditure;

               —

               the Commission has rejected the applicant's explanations without establishing the exact legal basis of that rejection;

               —

               the Commission has misinterpreted the facts and the documents put before it, for the sole purpose of showing fraudulent intent on the applicant's part when there was never any such intent.

         Third, the applicant considers that the cancellation of the amount of the aid, in those circumstances, constitutes an infringement of Regulation No 1164/94, in that: (i) all the objectives of that regulation and of Commission Decision C (95) 3281 were attained and (ii) Article H of Annex II was infringed.
   Last, the applicant alleges that, having regard to the completion of the project and the lack of any fraudulent intent, the contested decision runs counter to the principle of proportionality and to Article 5 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund.


title: Case T-326/12: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Removal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council
   (Case T-326/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Removal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 55/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicants: Salim Georges Al Toun (Al Ghassaneya-Lattakia, Syria) and Al Toun Group (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and I. Gurov, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case F-143/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 18 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Rejection by the appointing authority of a claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred in proceedings — Action for annulment having the same purpose as an application for taxation of costs — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 18 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-143/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Rejection by the appointing authority of a claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred in proceedings - Action for annulment having the same purpose as an application for taxation of costs - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 252/91
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to reimburse a quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, which it was ordered to pay by judgment of 15 February 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 26.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-317/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal): Elida Gibbs Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Value-added tax - Sixth Directive - Money-off and cash-back coupons - Taxable amount)

text:
 No C 9/4             LJN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 24 October 1996                                                    of 24 October 1996
 in Case C-217/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              in Case C-3 17/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Bolzano ):                the VAT and Duties Tribunal ): Elida Gibbs Ltd v.
      Eismann Alto Adige SRL v. Ufficio IVA di Bolzano ( ! )                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise ( ] )
 (Value-added tax — Interpretation of Article 22 (8) of the             (Value-added tax — Sixth Directive — Money-off and
 sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) as amended by Directive 91/                          cash-back coupons — Taxable amount)
 680/EEC — Equal treatment of domestic transactions and
 transactions carried out between Member States by                                                  ( 97/C 9/07)
                            taxable persons)
                               ( 97/C 9/06 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        In Case C-3 17/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                        Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties
                                                                        Tribunal, London, for a preliminary ruling in the
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Elida
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Gibbs Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise —
                                                                        on the interpretation of Article 11 of the sixth Directive,
                                                                        Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
In Case C-2 17/94: reference to the Court pursuant to                   harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Commissione                       to turnover taxes — common system of value-added tax:
Tributaria di primo grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),               uniform basis of assessment (2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
Bolzano ( Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings           Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
pending before that court between Eismann Alto Adige                    Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
SRL and Ufficio IVA di Bolzano — on the interpretation                  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
of Article 22 ( 8 ) of the sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws                   24 October 1996 , in which it has ruled:
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (2 ), as amended by Article 28h inserted by
Council Directive 91 /680/EEC of 16 December 1991                       1 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (a) and Article 11 (C) (1 ) of the
supplementing the common system of value-added tax and                      sixth Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the                            17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
abolition of fiscal frontiers ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth                     Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                      system of value-added tax: uniform basis of
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),                        assessment, are to be interpreted as meaning that
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                     where: (a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                   which is redeemable at the amount stated on the
on 24 October 1996, in which it has ruled:                                  coupon by, or at the expense of the manufacturer in
                                                                            favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is
                                                                            distributed to a potential customer in the course of a
Article 22 (8) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)                  sales promotion campaign, may be accepted by the
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                      retailer in payment for a specified item of goods,
Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                           (c) the manufacturer has sold the specified item at the
system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as                  'original supplier's price ' direct to the . retailer and
amended by Article 28h inserted by Council Directive 91 /                   (d) the retailer takes the coupon from the customer on
680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the                               sale of the item, presents it to the manufacturer and is
common system of value-added tax and amending                               paid the stated amount, the taxable amount is equal to
Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of                        the selling price charged by the manufacturer, less the
fiscal frontiers, is to be interpreted as not precluding a                  amount indicated on the voucher and refunded. The
national rule requiring accompanying documents to be                        same applies if the original supply is made by the
drawn up in respect of goods transported within the                         manufacturer to a wholesaler rather than directly to a
                                                                            retailer.
confines of the Member State concerned.
(!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p . 15 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                               2 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (a) and Article 11 (C) (1 ) of the
( 3 ) OJ No L 376, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                 sixth Directive are to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            where (a) in the course of a promotion scheme a
                                                                            manufacturer sells items of goods at the
                                                                            'manufacturer's price ' direct to a retailer, (b) a cash
 ---pagebreak---  11 . 1 . 97          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/5
      back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging                 Azevedo, 61 rue de Gasperich — the Court ( Sixth
      of those items entitles the customer, if he proves                Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, acting for the
      purchase of one of those items and satisfies other                President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
      conditions printed on the coupon, to present the                  Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,
      coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of               Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such              judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
      an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the
      manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, the
      taxable amount is equal to the selling price charged by           1 . Dismisses the appeal.
      the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the
      coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original
      supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler
      rather than directly to a retailer.                               2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 8 .                                  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                    of 24 October 1996
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European                           the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Communities v. Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                        Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van
           Restaurantes Colectivos Lda and Others (^                                             Zuid-Holland (M
(European Social Fund — Decision reducing financial                     (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
assistance initially granted — Infringement of the rights of            the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     the defence — Right of interested parties to be heard)                                        environment)
                               ( 97/C 9/08 )                                                        ( 97/C 9/09 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (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-32/95 P: Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        In Case C-72/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                  van State ( Netherlandse State Council ) for a preliminary
6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal and Others v.                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1177, seeking to have that                    between Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and
judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the                    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland — on
proceedings being: Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                    the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, a company incorporated                     27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
under Portuguese law, established in Almada ( Portugal ),               public and private projects on the environment ( 2 ) and on
Gabinete Tecnico de Informática Lda ( GTI ), a company                  the duty of national courts to ensure that a directive
incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon,               having direct effect is complied with, although no
Lisnico — Serviço Marítimo Internacional Lda, a                         individual has invoked it — the Court, composed of: G. C.
company incorporated under Portuguese law, established                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray,
in Almada, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistência                          L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
Maritima Lda, a company incorporated under Portuguese                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
law, established in Almada, and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de                 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet. G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet,
Desgasificação de Navios SA, a company incorporated                     Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
under Portuguese law, established in Almada, represented                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
by Manuel Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                 given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Angelo Alves                ruled :


title: Case C-572/10: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 28 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion — France) — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 28 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion — France) — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État
   (Case C-572/10) (1)

   2012/C 235/23
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-359/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Brive-La-Gaillarde by order of that court of  9 September 2005  in Estager SA v Receveur Principal de la Recette des Douanes de Brive

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Brive-La-Gaillarde by order of that court of 9 September 2005 in Estager SA v Receveur Principal de la Recette des Douanes de Brive
   (Case C-359/05)
   (2005/C 315/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court) of Brive-La-Gaillarde of 9 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Estager SA and Receveur Principal de la Recette des Douanes de Brive (Principal Collector of Customs Revenue of Brive) on the following question:
   Are the provisions of Order No 2000-916 of 19 September 2000, adapting the value to euros of certain amounts expressed in francs in the legislation, that concern the conversion of the BAPSA tax applied to the production of flour, meal and groats of common wheat, from FRF 100 francs to EUR 16 in conformity with the Community regulations in relation to the introduction of the euro?


title: Case C-467/06: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Italy) — Consel Gi. Emme Srl v Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/26

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Italy) — Consel Gi. Emme Srl v Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)
   (Case C-467/06) (1)

   (2008/C 128/49)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-389/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/46

         Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)
   (Case T-389/15)
   (2015/C 381/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘J&JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 411 808

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1355/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Office:

               —

               to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

               —

               to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-45/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 145/ 13
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade B 5 member of the temporary staff,            The contested decision states that the prohibition
contests the decision of the selection board in internal             precluding the export to other Member States of the
competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit the applicant to            products known as 'Andalate' and 'Andalate 20 mg LP',
the tests in the said competition on the ground that he did          alternatively 'Andalat' and 'Andalat-Retard ', agreed in the
not meet the condition of the completion of a minimum of             context of the continuing dealings between the applicant
three years ' uninterrupted service with the European                and its wholesalers in France or Spain, constitutes an
Communities as a member of the temporary staff.                      infringement by the applicant of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
                                                                     Treaty; it enjoins the applicant to cease the infringement and
He points out in that regard that his application was rejected       imposes on it a fine of ECU 3 000 000 .
on account of an interruption of 15 days in the contractual
relations between him and the Commission .                           The applicant contends that its commercial practices are
                                                                     limited to a unilateral fixing of quotas by means of purely
He advances the following pleas in support of his action :           internal measures, without any agreement with the
                                                                     wholesalers . It submits that, in practical terms, the contested
— breach of the right of members of temporary staff to take          decision subjects it, as an undertaking not occupying a
     part in internal competitions and infringement of the           dominant position in the market, to an obligation to
     first paragraph of Article 21 and the first paragraph of        contract. A refusal to supply would in itself be pertinent
     Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the            from the standpoint of cartel law, in accordance with
     criterion requiring candidates to have completed a              Article 86 , only if the undertaking refusing to supply
     period of uninterrupted service may result in the               dominated the market. The lengthy interpretation by the
     elimination of candidates possessing the same or better         Commission of the sanctions provided for by Article 85
     qualifications than those of other candidates admitted to       ignores the essential element of ' agreement', namely
    the competition,                                                 consensus ad idem, and goes beyond the limits laid down by
                                                                     constitutional and basic law, as well as contravening the
— a manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that        principle of the rule of law and the principle of certainty. In
     it appears that the applicant was in fact in the service of     view of the fact that this was clearly a 'test case ' for the
    the Commission from 16 March 1992 to 31 March                    Commission, in which the Commission was breaking
     1996 .                                                          new legal ground, the imposition of the fine was
                                                                     disproportionate .
                                                                     The applicant further relies, in the alternative, on the fact
                                                                     that the unilateral cutbacks in supplies are justified to a
                                                                     substantial extent by the patent protection existing in the
                                                                     United Kingdom in respect of ' Andalat-Retard'.
Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Bayer AG against the
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-41/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/25 )
                                                                     Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Société de
               (Language of the case: German)                        Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles against the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                             ( Case T-45/96 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996                                          ( 96/C 145/26 )
by Bayer AG, Leverkusen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                              (Language of the case: trench)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand-Rue .                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1996
                                                                     by Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles,
— annul the defendant's decision ( Case IV/34.279/F3 ) of            established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
     10 January 1 996 , which was notified to the applicant on       Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     22 January 1996 ,                                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon .
— in the alternative, set aside the fine of ECU 3 million
     imposed on the applicant,                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the further alternative, reduce the fine,                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 145/14        EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 5 . 96
— annul the decision implicitly refusing to enter into any       Pleas in law and main arguments
  communication,
                                                                 The applicant, a Peugeot concessionaire, objects to the
                                                                 Commission's failure to act on a complaint lodged by it
— annul the decision implicitly joining the matters,
                                                                 against PSA alleging infringement of Article 85 of the EC
— find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
                                                                 Treaty and of Regulation ( EEC ) No 183/85 in the
                                                                 formulation of its dealership agreement and the use made of
  liability and order it to make good the damage suffered
                                                                 that agreement in the particular case of the applicant.
  in the annual sum of up to ECU 200 000 from 14 March
   1995 ,                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                 previously advanced in Case T-190/95 Sodima v .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                         Commission .


title: Case T-233/14: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NEXTCARD — Partial refusal of registration by the examiner — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/51

         Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)
   (Case T-233/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark NEXTCARD - Partial refusal of registration by the examiner - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 138/67)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 1807/2013-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NEXTCARD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Intesa Sanpaolo SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-577/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/46

         Action brought on 25 August 2017 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission
   (Case T-577/17)
   (2017/C 347/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (Isbergues, France) (represented by: M. Günes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant(s)/appellant(s) claims/claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s conclusion, in document Ares(2017)3010674 of 15 June 2017, that the essential interests of Union producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) products;

               —

               order defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons

                           —

                           The Commission’s conclusion that the economic conditions were fulfilled with respect to the subject authorisation for inward processing fails to state any reasons on which the conclusion is based.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of facts

                           —

                           The Commission’s conclusion that the subject authorisation for inward processing would not adversely affect the essential interests of Union producers is based upon a manifest error of assessment of the facts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 211(4)(b) UCC (1) and the basic Regulation (2)

                           —

                           In concluding that the economic conditions were fulfilled with respect to the subject authorisation for inward processing, the Commission failed to limit its assessment to the factors set out in Article 211(4)(b) of the Union Customs Code (UCC) and based its assessment on factors that can only be reviewed under the procedure set out in the basic Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 259(4) of the UCC IA and the horizontal rules on operation of Commission expert groups

                           —

                           To the extent that the Commission delegated the conclusion on economic conditions to the Customs Expert Group, it infringed Article 259(4) of the UCC Implementing Act (3) (UCC IA) and the Commission’s horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of rights of defence

                           —

                           By failing to disclose certain important information provided in the subject application for inward processing authorisation or non-confidential summaries of the information in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence, the Commission infringed applicants’ rights of defence.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 5).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015, L 343, p. 558).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2000 in Case T-189/00 R: "Invest" Import und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce S.à r.l. v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Freeze of funds and ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 — Suspension of operation until the end of the interim proceedings)

text:
C 355/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.12.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                             INSTANCE                                                                  INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                           of 25 July 2000
                                                                           in Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
in Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH
and Invest Commerce S.à r.l. v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 (Officials — Interlocutory proceedings — Admissibility of
                                                                                the main proceedings)
(Procedure for interim relief — Freeze of funds and ban on                                           (2000/C 355/54)
investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
— Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 — Suspension of oper-
         ation until the end of the interim proceedings)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta, official of the Com-
                          (2000/C 355/53)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg, represented by Mr Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr
                                                                           Petit, 74, Val Sainte-Croix, against the Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: German)                         European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) —
                                                                           application for, first, suspension of the decision of the
                                                                           Commission contained in its letter dated 19 July 2000 and,
In Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH,                       secondly, an order of the Court requiring the Commission to
established in Neuss (Germany) and Invest Commerce S.à r.l.,               post the applicant to a third country by 1 September 2000 at
established in Alfortville (France), represented by R. Wägen-              the latest — the President of the Court of First Instance made
baur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of which is
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10                   as follows:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European
Communities — application pursuant to Article 105(2) of                    1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
the Rules of Procedure for suspension of the operation of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000                     2.    Costs are reserved.
amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999
concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in
relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (OJ 2000 L 129,
p. 15) in so far as it concerns the applicants — the President
of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 25 July 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    Until the adoption of the order terminating the present
      proceedings for interim relief, operation of Commission Regu-
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
      lation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000 amending
      Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 concern-
      ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the     in Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongol-
      Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is suspended in relation to the       ue and Marc Boixader Rivas v Council of the European
      applicants, to the extent that the Commission is required to                         Union and European Parliament
      grant without delay an authorisation for each import and
      export operation notified to it by the applicants — without          (Proceedings for interim relief — Notice of competition —
      complying with the procedure under Article 9 of Regulation                  Officials — Admissibility — Urgency — None)
      No 1294/1999, as amended by Regulation No 723/2000
      — and the applicants may, notwithstanding Article 3(1) of
      that regulation, have at their disposal the funds necessary for                                (2000/C 355/55)
      each of the corresponding operations.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                           In Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Madrid, represented by
                                                                           D. López Garrido of the Madrid bar, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Choucroun, 84 Grand-


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 1999 in Case T-154/99 Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 6/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.1.2000
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ulrich
                                                                          Wolker and Xavier Lewis) — application for annulment of the
                       of 15 October 1999                                 Commission decision of 30 March 1999 refusing a request
                                                                          from the applicant for information and for the Commission to
                                                                          be held liable — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
in Case T-94/96 (92): Martin Hagleitner v Commission of                   composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                 the European Communities (1)                             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 October 1999,
                                                                          the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (Taxation of costs)
                                                                          1. There is no need to reach a decision on the third form of order
                                                                              sought in the application, to the effect that the Commission
                           (2000/C 6/38)
                                                                              should be ordered to provide the applicant with the information
                                                                              requested.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          2. The application for annulment is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-94/96 (92): Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,              3. The claim for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.
represented by Harald Svoboda, Rechtsanwalt, Vienna, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex                 4. The applicant shall bear his own costs, together with those
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v Commission of the European                    incurred by the Commission.
Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur)
— application for taxation of the costs payable by the
defendant to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of the                (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
Court of First Instance of 15 September 1998 — the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 October 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the applicant is fixed in the sum of 9 500 euro, together with any
VAT payable on the fees of the applicant’s lawyer.                                               of 20 October 1999
(1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.                                                in Case T-154/99 Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V. v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
                                                                                measure — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/40)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 27 October 1999
                                                                          In Case T-154/99: Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V., established in
in Case T-106/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the                       Neuss (Germany), represented by Heinz Günther Hüsch,
                    European Communities (1)                              Rechtsanwalt, Neuss, v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: Karen Banks and Klaus Wiedner) — appli-
                                                                          cation for annulment of the Commission decision of 6 April
(Inadmissibility — Actionable measure — Access to docu-
                                                                          1999 ordering repayment of financial aid granted to the
ments of the institutions — Difference between information
                                                                          applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                          and documents)
                                                                          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                                                                          P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                           (2000/C 6/39)                                  20 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1. It is unnecessary to adjudicate in the present action;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2. The Commission shall bear the costs.
In Case T-106/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa, Raiatea
(French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,              (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
of the Papeete Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal
Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, against