title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Case T-6/01: Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity between two trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word "Matratzen" — Earlier word trade mark MATRATZEN)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/31
the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being ELS                     and Designs) of 31 October 2000 (Joined Cases R 728/1999-
Educational Services, Inc., established in Culver City, California          2 and R 792/1999-2), relating to opposition proceedings
(United States): Action brought against the decision of the                 between Hukla Germany SA and Matratzen Concord GmbH,
Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October                     of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
2000 (Case R 074/2000-3), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and                  judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
it:                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2000 (Case R 074/2000-
       3) in so far as it relates to the analysis of the likelihood of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
       confusion between the conflicting marks;
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;
3.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and pay two thirds
       of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant shall bear
       one third of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 November 2002
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01: Robert Bosch GmbH
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         of 23 October 2002
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro —
in Case T-6/01: Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for                         Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Relative grounds
for refusal — Similarity between two trade marks —
Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                        (Language of the case: German)
(EC) No 40/94 — Application for a figurative Community
trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ — Earlier word
                     trade mark MATRATZEN)
                            (2003/C 19/57)                                  In Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01, Robert Bosch GmbH,
                                                                            established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by S. Völker,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                     (Language of the case: German)                         mission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                            Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of
                                                                            Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                            (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 (Cases R 124/
In Case T-6/01, Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen                  2000-1 and R 123/2000-1) on the registration of Kit Pro and
Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented                   Kit Super Pro respectively as Community trade marks, the
by W.-W. Wodrich, avocat, v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:                   M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
A. von Mühlendahl, G. Schneider and E. Joly): Action brought                tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   on 20 November 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-684/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/34

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission
   (Case T-684/14)
   (2014/C 431/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d. (Novo Mesto, Slovenia) (represented by: T. Ilešič and M. Kocmut, lawyers).

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier), served on the applicant on 11 July 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant, in particular Articles 4, 7(4)(a), 8 and 9;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               order such other measures as justice may require.

      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 that the Commission failed to properly analyse the legal, factual and economic context of the applicant's situation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly concluded that the applicant and Servier were actual or potential competitors under Article 101 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission's wrong conclusion that the patent settlement concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU rests on erroneous factual and legal analysis as well as on a wrongful application of the established principles on restrictions by object.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right of defence by inconsistently examining the Assignment and Licence Agreement and erred in concluding that the Assignment and Licence Agreement amounts to a restriction of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the agreements concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by effect under Article 101(1) TFEU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to accurately assess the arguments raised by the applicant under Article 101(3) TFEU.


title: Case T-579/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2013 — macros consult v OHIM — MIP Metro (makro) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark makro — Company name macros consult GmbH — Right acquired prior to the application for registration of a Community trade mark and entitling its holder to prohibit the use of the Community trade mark applied for — Non-registered signs protected under German law — Article 5 of the Markengesetz — Article 8(4), Article 53(1)(c), and Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2013 — macros consult v OHIM — MIP Metro (makro)
   (Case T-579/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark makro - Company name macros consult GmbH - Right acquired prior to the application for registration of a Community trade mark and entitling its holder to prohibit the use of the Community trade mark applied for - Non-registered signs protected under German law - Article 5 of the Markengesetz - Article 8(4), Article 53(1)(c), and Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 178/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie (Ottobrunn, Germany) (represented initially by T. Raible, and subsequently by M. Daubenmerkl, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by R. Manea, and subsequently by G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2010 (Case R 339/2009-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-386/13: Action brought on 5 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/34

         Action brought on 5 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-386/13)
   2013/C 260/63
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions that are necessary to comply with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC (2) and 2003/30/EC (3) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Cyprus, in accordance with Article 260(3) EC, a daily penalty payment of EUR 11 404,80 from the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 concerns the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and the amendment and subsequent repeal of Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. According to Article 1, the directive establishes a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources. It sets mandatory national targets for the overall share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy and for the share of energy from renewable sources in transport. It lays down rules relating to statistical transfers between Member States, joint projects between Member States and with third countries, guarantees of origin, administrative procedures, information and training, and access to the electricity grid for energy from renewable sources. It establishes sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids.

               2.

               Under Article 27 of Directive 2009/28/EC, the Member States had to adopt the national provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 5 December 2010 and to communicate the measures adopted to the Commission; such communication constitutes an element inherent in the obligation to transpose European Union directives into domestic law and in the duty to cooperate in good faith, and this fact is also reflected in Article 260(3) TFEU.

               3.

               On the basis of the Cypriot authorities’ letters and the national measures communicated, during the pre-litigation procedure and before it was decided to bring the present action, the Commission established that the Republic of Cyprus had not adopted all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to bring the national framework fully into line with Directive 2009/28/EC, and it decided to bring an action before the Court pursuant to Article 258 TFEU in conjunction with Article 260(3) TFEU for a declaration that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42.


title: Case C-427/12: Action brought on 19 September 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/12

         Action brought on 19 September 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-427/12)
   2012/C 355/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, C. Zadra and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1) insofar as it provides for the adoption of measures establishing the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by an implementing act under Article 291 TFEU and not by a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 TFEU;

               —

               Maintain the effects of the provision annulled and of all acts adopted on the basis thereof until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new provision intended to replace it;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, in the event that the Court were to consider that this application for partial annulment is not admissible,

               —

               Annul that regulation in its entirety;

               —

               Maintain the effects of the abovementioned regulation and of all acts adopted on the basis thereof until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation intended to replace it;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging infringement of the Treaty and, in particular, of the system of attribution of the regulatory powers which the European Union legislature may attribute to the Commission pursuant to Article 290 and 291 TFEU.
   The Commission submits that the Council and the Parliament erred in deciding to confer on the Commission implementing powers on the basis of Article 291 TFEU in order to establish the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency. In the Commission’s opinion, the act which it is called upon to adopt on the basis of Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 is in fact a delegated act within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, in as much as it seeks to supplement certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Having regard to the nature of the attribution of powers made to the Commission but also to the purpose of the act to be adopted under those powers, such an act ought therefore to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 290 TFEU and not the procedures laid down in Article 291 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1.


title: Case T-122/07: Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens and VA TECH Transmission & Distribution v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/31

         Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens and VA TECH Transmission & Distribution v Commission
   (Case T-122/07)
   (2007/C 140/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (Vienna, Austria) and VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds that the applicants infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53 of the EEA Agreement during the period from 20 September 1998 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9 October 2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the applicants are affected;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2(l) of the decision to an amount not exceeding EUR 1 980 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicants and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicants took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.
   The applicants base their application primarily on breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). In this connection they complain that the fine imposed on VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG is disproportionately high in relation to the fines imposed on other undertakings. Furthermore, the way in which the Commission attempted to divide a total amount of fines up among various companies breached the ne bis in idem principle. In addition, the applicants assert that the Commission incorrectly assessed the duration of the infringement. Further, the Commission found without cogent proof that until 13 December 2000 the alleged infringement had as its purpose or effect a restriction of competition within the Community. Finally, it is submitted in connection with the first plea in law that when the fines were assessed mitigating circumstances and the leniency notice were wrongly left out of account.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements. In this connection they complain of a breach of the right to be heard.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
24.5.2002        EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 123/15
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                             NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                         (2002/C 123/09)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities is publishing in the Official Journal of the European
          Communities C 123 A of 24 May 2002 the following open competitions:
          Swedish edition
          CJ/LA/17 (Lawyer-linguists of Swedish mother-tongue)
          Danish edition
          CJ/LA/18 (Lawyer-linguists of Danish mother-tongue)
          To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of the European
          Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          The final date for receipt of applications is 24 June 2002.


title: Case T-290/04: Action brought on 21 July 2004 by Miguel Teixeira Gaspar, Pedro Paixão Telhada, Ricardo Jorge da Silva Seara Pinto de Amorim and Fernando Miguel Santos Ribeiro against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/36

         Action brought on 21 July 2004 by Miguel Teixeira Gaspar, Pedro Paixão Telhada, Ricardo Jorge da Silva Seara Pinto de Amorim and Fernando Miguel Santos Ribeiro against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-290/04)
   (2004/C 262/69)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 July 2004 by Miguel Teixeira Gaspar, Pedro Paixão Telhada, Ricardo Jorge da Silva Seara Pinto de Amorim and Fernando Miguel Santos Ribeiro, resident in Parede and Brandoa, represented by Ana Clara Santos and Inês Alves Guerra, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 in Case R 0682/2001-4, notified to the applicants on 18 May 2004.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               João Pedro Lamúrias Escoval.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘MOONSPELL’ — Application No. 483438 for goods and services in class 41 (musical band).

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicants.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The word mark ‘MOONSPELL’ used by the applicants for goods and services in class 41 (musical band).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition dismissed.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1), (2)(c) and (4) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 40/94 (1). Widely-known mark used by the applicants at the time of the application for registration in question. Negligent assessment of the evidence submitted by the applicants.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2001 in Case C-86/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heidelberg): HSB-Wohnbau GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Entry in the commercial register of the transfer of a company's registered office — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
13.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/7
Saccarifera Italiana Agroindistriale SpA (ISI), established in             ruling in connection with an application for registration in the
Padua, Italy, Sadani Zuccerifici, a division of SECI — Società             commercial register made by HSB-Wohnbau GmbH, on the
Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in Bologna,              interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the Court (Fifth
Italy, Sadam Castigliognese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam             Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise              Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón and
SpA, established in Termoli, Italy, Società Fondiaria Industriale          S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena, Italy, represent-             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
ed by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and I. Vigliotti, avvocato, —                2001, in which it has ruled:
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case
T-158/95 Eridania and Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2219,                 The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the             jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Amtsgericht Heidelberg
proceedings being, Council of the European Union (Agents:                  in its order of 3 March 2000.
I. Dı́ez Parra and J.P. Hix), Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Ponteco
Zuccheri SpA, established in Pontelagoscuro, Italy — the Court             (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Second Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Eridania SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindis-                            ORDER OF THE COURT
      triale SpA (ISI), Sadam Zuccerifici, a division of SECI
      — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam
      Castigliognese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del                                        (First Chamber)
      Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA
      (SFIR) jointly to pay the costs;
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                           in Case C-102/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
( 1) OJ C 352, 4.12.1999.                                                  the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Welthgrove BV v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
                                                                           (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 4 of the
                                                                           Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Involvement of
                                                                             a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2001/C 289/13)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           of 10 July 2001
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-86/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       in the European Court Reports)
   the Amtsgericht Heidelberg): HSB-Wohnbau GmbH (1)
                                                                           In Case C-102/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Entry in the commer-                 from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
cial register of the transfer of a company’s registered office             Netherlands) (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
              — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                         proceedings pending before that court between Welthgrove
                                                                           BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation
                          (2001/C 289/12)                                  of Article 4, Article 11A(1)(a) and Article 13B(d)(5) of Sixth
                                                                           Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                           basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-
                                                                           Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given an
In Case C-86/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC               order on 12 July 2001, the operative part of which is as
from the Amtsgericht Heidelberg (Germany), for a preliminary               follows:


title: Case T-554/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/54

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
   (Case T-554/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of FRONTEX to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tenders Frontex/OP/98/2010 — EOROSUR Big Pilot Project (OJ 2010, S 90-134098), as well as all further related decisions of FRONTEX, including the one to award the respective contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               Annul the decision of FRONTEX to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to Lot 1 and Lot 6 of the open call for tenders Frontex/OP/87/2010 — Framework Contract (OJ 2010, S 66-098323), as well as all further related decisions of FRONTEX, including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors;

               —

               Order FRONTEX to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 9 358 915,00 EUR;

               —

               Order FRONTEX to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of loss of opportunity and damage to its reputation and credibility for an amount of 935 891,00 EUR; and

               —

               Order FRONTEX to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions of 16 September 2010 and 20 October 2010 to reject its bid in the context of the call for tenders Frontex/OP/98/2010 — EOROSUR Big Pilot Project (OJ 2010, S 90-134098) and Lot 1 and Lot 6 of the open call for tenders Frontex/OP/87/2010 — Framework Contract (OJ 2010, S 66-098323), as well as all further related decisions of FRONTEX, including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages on account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following grounds.
   Firstly, the applicant argues that the defendant has infringed Articles 100(2) of the financial regulation (1), the obligation to state reasons, as FRONTEX refused to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant.
   Furthermore, the applicant argues that the defendant committed various and serious errors of assessment, infringed the principle of non-discrimination and did not comply with the exclusion criteria, thereby infringing Articles 93(1)(f) and 94 of the financial regulation.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant violated the principle of good administration since it illegally mixed the selection and award criteria.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case T-557/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Liaño Reig v SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/24

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Liaño Reig v SRB
   (Case T-557/17)
   (2017/C 357/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Carmen Liaño Reig (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: F. López Antón, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               On the basis of the considerations set out in pleas 3.1 to 3.4 of the present action, annul the resolution measure agreed in Article 6(1)(d) consisting in the conversion of the Level 2 capital instrument relating to the subordinated bonds issued by BPE Financiaciones S.A. under ISIN XS0550098569, and identified as #4, into newly issued Banco Popular Español S.A. shares on the ground that it is unfounded and contrary to the Regulation and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               Should the Court uphold the request set out in the previous paragraph, given that, according to the provisions of Recital 91 and the last subparagraph of Article 85(4) of the Directive, annulment of a decision of a resolution authority does not affect any subsequent administrative acts or transactions that are based on the annulled decision, order the SRB, pursuant to that article, and in accordance with Article 87(3) of the Regulation, to compensate the applicant for the loss incurred as a consequence of annulment of the decision referred to in the previous paragraph.
               To that effect, the loss incurred by the applicant is fixed at the actual value at the date of her payment of the sum of EUR 50 000 corresponding to the nominal value of the bond with a maturity date of 22 October 2020 issued by BPE Financiaciones S.A. under ISIN XS0550098569 which the applicant held at the date of the decision, plus the actual value at the date of her payment of interest at the annual fixed rate of 6,873 % which that bond would have accrued between 7 June 2017 (date of the decision) and 22 October 2020 (maturity date of that bond).

               —

               In the alternative to the requests made in the preceding paragraphs, and in accordance with the considerations in plea 3.5 of the present action, order the SRB to compensate the applicant with an amount equivalent to that which she would have received as holder of the bond ISIN XS0550098569 issued by BPE Financiaciones S.A. had that company been liquidated at the date of the Decision as a result of an ordinary insolvency procedure, taking into account the fact that the applicant has not received any compensation or consideration either as a result of the conversion of the bond referred to, which she held, into newly issued Banco Popular Español S.A. shares or owing to the transfer of those shares to Banco Santander S.A.;

               —

               If the Spanish law requirements for starting an ordinary insolvency procedure in relation to BPE Financiaciones S.A., which would result in its liquidation at the date of the decision, are not met (which the applicant believes to be the case), the amount of the compensation to be paid to the applicant is fixed at EUR 50 000, corresponding to the nominal value of the bond issued by that company which she holds;

               —

               If the Spanish law requirements for starting an ordinary insolvency procedure in relation to BPE Financiaciones S.A., which would result in its liquidation at the date of the decision, are met, the amount of the compensation claimed will be the amount resulting from the valuation that has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 20(16) to (18) of the Regulation;

               —

               In the alternative to the requests made in the preceding paragraphs, and in accordance with the considerations in plea 3.6 of the present action, order the SRB to compensate the applicant with a commensurate amount to the amount which would have stemmed from the conversion of all the subordinated bonds issued by the Banco Popular Español S.A. in existence at the date of the decision that had not been converted into shares of that institution pursuant to the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-319/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by Port Support Customs Rotterdam B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/48

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by Port Support Customs Rotterdam B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-319/04)
   (2004/C 262/90)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by Port Support Customs Rotterdam B.V., established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), represented by A.T.M. Jansen.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 18 May 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to make the information available to the applicant and to supply it with a copy of the requested documents.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant requested access to the OLAF mission report on footwear and textile products from Cambodia. The applicant was granted only partial access to that report and therefore requested access to those parts of the report which had not been disclosed. The applicant was not granted such access.
   In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1) The applicant submits that the Commission failed to reply to its confirmatory application.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-59/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 February 2014  — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-59/14)
   2014/C 142/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a case where the infringement of a provision of Community law was discovered only after the occurrence of prejudice, does the irregularity which is necessary for the commencement of the limitation period under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) and which is defined in Article 1(2) of that regulation presuppose, in addition to an act or omission by the economic operator, that the general budget of the European Union or budgets managed by the European Union were prejudiced, so that the limitation period begins to run only after the occurrence of the prejudice, or does the limitation period begin, irrespective of when the prejudice occurs, with the act or omission of the economic operator which constitutes an infringement of a provision of Community law?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is that the limitation period does not begin until the occurrence of the prejudice:
               In connection with a demand for repayment of an export refund which has been definitively granted, is there already prejudice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 when an amount equal to the export refund within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 565/80 has been paid to the exporter, without the security under Article 6 of that regulation having already been released, or is there no prejudice until the release of the security or the definitive grant of the export refund?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-116/03 P: Appeal brought on 14 March 2003 by Augusto Fichtner, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-75/00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission

text:
24.5.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/7
Appeal brought on 14 March 2003 by Augusto Fichtner,                           b)   even if it should be deemed that the appellant did,
a former official of the Commission of the European                                 however, fail to fulfil said obligation, such breach
Communities, against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of                             could not be held to have been committed ‘intention-
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case                           ally or through negligence’;
           T-75/00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission
                                                                         2.    the principle of proportionality (by the administration)
                                                                               by:
                         (Case C-116/03 P)
                                                                               a)   misuse of its powers: the Commission, by adopting
                                                                                the contested decision, pursued an objective other
                          (2003/C 124/11)                                           that for which the relevant power had been con-
                                                                                ferred on it (safeguarding the internal rules of the
                                                                                civil service) and, in any event, in order to achieve
                                                                                purposes other than those declared;
An appeal against the judgment of 16 January 2003 of the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-75/                    b)   manifest error of assessment of the facts: the Com-
00 Augusto Fichtner v Commission was brought before the                             mission failed to take into account:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March
2003 by Augusto Fichtner, represented by Michele Tamburini                          1)    the good faith of the appellant;
and Franco Colussi, lawyers.
                                                                                2)    that he could not have been refused the per-
                                                                                mission in question since the outside activity
                                                                                did not impair the official’s independence nor
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                was detrimental to the work of the Communi-
                                                                                ties.
—     set aside the contested judgment;
—     uphold the claims submitted at first instance and, accord-
      ingly;
      —     annul the contested decision of the appointing
            authority of 30 September 1999, which is at issue;           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
                                                                         Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Sezione Sesta by order of
                                                                         that Court of 17 December 2002 in the case of Società
      —     order the Commission to pay him the outstanding              Italiana Dragaggi s.p.a. against Ministero delle Infrastruttu-
            remuneration and allowances as revalued and with             re e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli
            interest to run from the date on which the decision                                    Venezia Giulia
            took effect until actual payment is made;
                                                                                (Case C-117/03)
      —     order the Commission to make good the material
            and non-material damage suffered by the appellant,
            such compensation being assessed at EUR 50 000 or                                     (2003/C 124/12)
            any other amount which the Court might deem
            appropriate and equitable or as may be subsequently
            decided;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             sede giurisdizionale, Sezione Sesta (Judicial Committee of the
                                                                         Council of State, Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2002,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 March 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Società Italiana Dragaggi s.p.a.
                                                                         against Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following
                                                                         question:
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is contrary to
Community law, in particular to:
                                                                         Is Article 4(5) of Directive No 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992
                                                                         to be interpreted as meaning that the measures under Article 6
1)    Article 86(1) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as:
                                                                         and, in particular, under Article 6(3) of that directive are
                                                                         mandatory for the Member States only after final approval at
      a)    the appellant did not fail to fulfil his obligations         Community level of the list of sites under Article 21 or,
            under the third paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff         alternatively, in addition to determination of the ordinary
            Regulations, having proved that he did request               commencement date of conservation measures, must a distinc-
            permission to pursue an outside activity;                    tion be drawn between declaratory listing and determinative


title: Joined Cases C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Post AG, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 10(3) — Decision requiring the production of information — Act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Post AG, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 10(3) - Decision requiring the production of information - Act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU)
   2011/C 355/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 in Case T-570/08 Deutsche Post v Commission by which the General Court upheld a plea of inadmissibility put forward by the Commission and accordingly dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008 requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG — Misinterpretation of ‘challengeable act’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC — Failure to have regard to the nature and legal consequences of the contested act — Infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2010, Deutsche Post v Commission (T-570/08), and Germany v Commission (T-571/08).

               2.

               Dismisses the objections of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission before the General Court of the European Union.

               3.

               Refers the cases back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the pleas of Deutsche Post AG (T-570/08) and the Federal Republic of Germany (T-571/08) for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2008 ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to provide information in the proceedings concerning State aid in favour of Deutsche Post AG.

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/1

         (2009/C 44/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

   Past publications

      OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

      OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

      OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-178/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/28                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
Case T-20/98 Jemaa v Council (1), contests the decision of the
appointing authority rejecting her request that it bear the              The applicants, who have already made an application to the
expense of an apartment corresponding to the needs of her                Commission for review of its tacit or implied refusal to grant
family by reimbursing the amount of her monthly rent.                    access to certain minutes of the Advisory Committee on VAT
                                                                         (the VAT Committee) established by Article 29 of the Sixth
                                                                         VAT Directive (1), are now attacking the Commission’s express
The decision refusing her request is based on the grounds,               and definitive decision refusing ‘access to the minutes in
first, that the applicant was at the material time occupying             question’.
accommodation which was owned by her, and, second,
that she was not required, for reasons connected with the
performance of her duties, to move her place of residence
outside Geneva, where she had been sent.
                                                                         The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes
                                                                         the Code of Conduct attached to Commission Decision
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads infringement of           94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (Access Code) and/or Article 253 EC
Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 5, 18 and            on the following grounds:
23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, together with failure
to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare and
interests of officials. She maintains in that regard that none of        — The contested decision fails to indicate the means of
the aforementioned provisions makes reimbursement of the                      redress, and thus infringe a mandatory rule of law relating
actual cost of the renting of accommodation by an official                    to the application of the Treaty;
posted outside the Community conditional on a change of
residence for reasons connected with the performance of his
or her duties, or on the official concerned not being the owner          — The third paragraph of the contested decision, in which
of real property in the place of employment.                                  the refusal to allow access is expressed, is utterly devoid
                                                                              of reasons. Should, however, the contested decision be
                                                                              construed as meaning that the defendant refuses access to
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 35.                                              the minutes in question because the rule of confidentiality
                                                                              extends to the minutes of meetings, then the applicants
                                                                              submit that the contested decision is inadequately
                                                                              reasoned;
                                                                         — The contested decision does not contain any particular
                                                                              reasons for which the minutes in question fall under a
                                                                              relevant head of exception to the general right to and
Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder                         principle of the fullest possible public access to documents.
and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-178/99)                                For the sake of completeness, the applicants submit that
                                                                         where consultation of statutory committee (such as the VAT
                                                                         Committee or a ‘comitology’ committee) is, as here, an
                         (1999/C 281/53)                                 essential procedural requirement, the non-observance of which
                                                                         leads to the annulment of a legislative act, there can never be
                                                                         any justification for refusing to produce proof of such
                   (Language of the case: English)                       consultation, in the form of a probative contemporaneous
                                                                         report (such as minutes), since in the absence of proof the
                                                                         legislative act in question must be declared void. That being
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         so, not only is the contested decision manifestly invalid, but
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         the very validity of the UK legislation in question would be
European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         endangered if the defendant were to persist in its refusal to
Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby, of
                                                                         grant access to the minutes as requested by the applicants.
Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman,
Brussels.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Case T-78/99 (Elder and Elder v Commission), OJ C 174 of 19 June
— annul the decision of the defendant dated 8 June 1999                      1999, p. 11.
     refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee as
     specified in the application for review dated 6 January
     1999;
— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant
     to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
     Instance.


title: Case C-192/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cobra SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cobra SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-192/17)
   (2017/C 231/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Cobra SpA

      Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Directive 1999/5/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer who makes use of the procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, must consult a notified body and thus ensure that the CE marking (certifying compliance with the essential requirements set out in that directive) is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the event that a manufacturer, having made use of the procedure referred to in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, has nonetheless voluntarily consulted a notified body, asking it to confirm the list of tests mentioned above, must that manufacturer ensure that the CE marking certifying compliance with the essential requirements set out in Directive 1999/5/EC is accompanied by the identification number of that notified body?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, in the event that a manufacturer, having made use of the procedure referred to in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, has nonetheless subsequently voluntarily consulted a notified body, asking it to confirm the list of tests mentioned above, and has voluntarily ensured that the product is accompanied by the identification number of the body consulted, must that manufacturer also quote that body’s identification number on both the product and its packaging?

      (1)  Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-54/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/25
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          Action brought on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte
       thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May                against the Council of the European Union and the
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                 Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-53/97 )
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                         ( 97/C 142/52 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
Case T-50/97 (').                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte, of
                                                                        Fleringen ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                        Guillaume .
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
against the Council of the European Union and the
            Commission of the European Communities                      ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                           ( Case T-52/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 279 389, together with interest
                             ( 97/C 142/51 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full ;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 45 349
the Commission of the European Communities was                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Communities on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans, of                           thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Herkenbosch (Netherlands ), represented by E. Fl .                             1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in               ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
 Guillaume .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-50/97 (').
 ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
        applicant the sum of Fl 60 863 , together with interest          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
        thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
        1992 until the date of payment in full;
        in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 22 390 ,                Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil
        ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           against the Council of the European Union and the
        Regulation ( EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest                      Commission of the European Communities
        thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                                            ( Case T-54/97 )
        1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                                   ( 97/C 142/53 )
 ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil , of
 Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                         Winterswijk Miste (Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
                                                                          Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
  (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                  van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden , 62 Avenue
                                                                          Guillaume .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/26            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant the sum of Fl 330 626, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of payment in full;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case 7-50/97 ( x ).
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 57 698
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full;
                                                                       Action brought on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M.
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                           Stoffelen against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                              ( Case T-56/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/55
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M. Stoffelen,
                                                                       of Ottersum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
against the Council of the European Union and the                      of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
           Commission of the European Communities                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                       Guillaume .
                          ( Case T-55 /97 )
                           ( 97/C 142/54 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant the sum of Fl 313 437, together with interest
the Commission of the European Communities was                                thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    1992 until the date of payment in full ;
Communities on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen, of
Maasbree (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                       in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                              think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 122 738
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                           ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Guillaume .
                                                                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
                                                                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   1992 until the date of the payment in full;
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
      applicant the sum of Fl 234 230, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of payment in full;                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              Case T-50/97 C ).
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 97 506
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full ;


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 November 2002 in Case C-100/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Ministre de l'Intérieur v Aitor Oteiza Olazabal (Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Public policy (ordre public) — Police measures limiting the right of residence of a national of another Member State to part of the national territory)

text:
11.1.2003                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/5
Robelco NV and Robeco Groep NV on the interpretation                          of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English
of Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of                      Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117), the Court, composed of:
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                        G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court                and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                  D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-                  F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
er, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and                       Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Adminis-
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-                   trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November
cate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the                    2002, in which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                           Neither Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                              Article 39 EC) nor the provisions of secondary legislation which
Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December             implement the freedom of movement for workers preclude a Member
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to                 State from imposing, in relation to a migrant worker who is a
trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State                national of another Member State, administrative police measures
may, if it sees fit, and subject to such conditions as it may determine,      limiting that worker’s right of residence to a part of the national
protect a trade mark against use of a sign other than for the purposes        territory, provided
of distinguishing goods or services, where use of that sign without
due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                —      that such action is justified by reasons of public order or public
distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.                               security based on his individual conduct;
                                                                              —      that, by reason of their seriousness, those reasons could
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.                                                           otherwise give rise only to a measure prohibiting him from
                                                                                residing in, or banishing him from, the whole of the national
                                                                                territory; and
                                                                              —      that the conduct which the Member State concerned wishes to
                                                                                prevent gives rise, in the case of its own nationals, to punitive
                                                                                measures or other genuine and effective measures designed to
                                                                                combat it.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                         of 26 November 2002
in Case C-100/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): Ministre de l’Intérieur v Aitor Oteiza
                               Olazabal ( 1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Public
policy (ordre public) — Police measures limiting the right of                                              (Sixth Chamber)
residence of a national of another Member State to part of
                          the national territory)                                                       of 26 November 2002
                              (2003/C 7/08)                                   in Case C-202/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
                       (Language of the case: French)                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        Classification as special protection areas — Plaine des
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                            Maures)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/09)
In Case C-100/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                           (Language of the case: French)
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Ministre
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
de l’Intérieur and Aitor Oteiza Olazabal, on the interpretation
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
of Articles 6, 8a and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC) and of Council
Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-
ordination of special measures concerning the movement and                    In Case C-202/01, Commission of the European Communities
residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds                 (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic


title: Case T-369/05: Action brought on  23 September 2005  — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/35

         Action brought on 23 September 2005 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-369/05)
   (2005/C 296/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Kingdom of Spain (represented by: D. Fernando Diez Moreno)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 15 July 2005 (2005/555/2685) in so far as it refers to the financial corrections made in respect of Spain in relation to the conversion and restructuring of vineyards and the measures for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against the Commission Decision of 15 July 2005 (2005/555/EC) excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF. Among the exclusions contained in that decision are financial corrections which affect the Kingdom of Spain and apply to the fruit and vegetable sector, the milk sector, public storage, wine and tobacco, animal premiums and the honey sector.
   This action refers exclusively to the correction of the amounts paid by way of compensation for loss of income in the wine sector (EUR 4 790 799,61) and the correction made for the inclusion of VAT in the EAGGF financing in the honey sector (EUR 58 315,34). The applicant takes the view that the Commission bases its arguments on a restrictive interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1). The Kingdom of Spain also challenges the VAT rules on the improvement of the production and marketing of honey.
   The Spanish authorities take the view that:

               —

               the loss of income is connected not to grubbing up, but to the very act of planting; and

               —

               the Commission's argument that VAT cannot be regarded as an intervention intended to stabilise the markets, since it cannot be financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, has no legal basis.

      (1)  OJ L 179 of 14.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-381/09: Action brought on 25 September 2009 — RWE Transgas v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/22

         Action brought on 25 September 2009 — RWE Transgas v Commission
   (Case T-381/09)
   2009/C 297/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: RWE Transgas a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: W. Deselaers, D. Seeliger and S. Einhaus, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare invalid the third sentence of Point 89(a) of Commission Decision C(2009) 4694 of 12 June 2009, insofar as it finds that the applicant and Gazprom — to be considered for this purpose jointly — may together account for no more than 50 % of capacity as long as substantial long-term gas supply agreements exist between them;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, an importer of gas into the Czech Republic, has brought an action against the letter of 12 June 2009 sent by the Commission to the German energy regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) in which the Commission asks the Bundesnetzagentur to amend certain aspects of the exemption it has granted, pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) for the gas pipeline project Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung (Baltic Sea Pipeline Link) (‘OPAL’). The applicant complains that one of the Commission’s conditions would have the effect of restricting or, as the case may be, preventing the applicant’s access to OPAL’s transport/release capacities in the Czech Republic.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing by denying it any opportunity to comment on the condition imposing a burden on it before it was adopted.
   Second, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the applicant’s right of access to documents, by denying it any access to the file of the proceedings.
   Finally, the applicant complains that the defendant misapplied Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC and the principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment and the duty to state reasons (Article 253 EC).

      (1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).