title: Case T-62/99: Action brought on 2 March 1999 by Dominique Rafoni, court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of Société de distribution mécanique et d'automobiles (Sodima), against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Action brought on 2 March 1999 by Dominique Rafoni,                      Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc
court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodi-
ma), against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                                                (Case T-63/99)
                         (Case T-62/99)                                                           (1999/C 160/49)
                        (1999/C 160/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc,
European Communities on 2 March 1999 by Dominique                        represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Rafoni, court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodima),             & Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
residing at Aix en Provence (France), represented by Jean
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
Béatrix de Bourbon.                                                      — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in this
                                                                             application,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999,                         including those of the applicant.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present application is directed against the Commission’s
On 1 July 1994 the applicant submitted to the Commission a               decision of 22 December 1998 [K(1998) 4569 endg.], on
complaint based on articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty and on               subsidies granted by the Federal Republic of Germany (‘Ger-
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 183/85 concerning the                     many’) to the mineral coal industry in 1999, which purports
imposition by the Peugeot company of a dealership system                 to authorise Germany to grant those subsidies.
incompatible with the exemption conditions laid down by that
regulation.
                                                                         According to the applicant, some, but not all, of the issues
In the present case, the applicant, by whom two actions have             raised in this application have been raised in Cases T-110/98 (1)
previously been brought for a declaration that the Commission            and T-12/99 (2), relating to aid paid to the German Coal
has failed to act (1), contests the Commission’s decision of             Industry for 1997 and 1998 respectively.
5 January 1999 definitively rejecting its complaint.
                                                                         The application essentially concerns article 4(c) of the ECSC
In support of its action for annulment, the applicant pleads:            Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC (3), which lays down a
                                                                         code (‘the Code’) under which aid may be approved by the
— failure by the defendant institution to fulfil its obligations         Commission in derogation from article 4(c) aforesaid.
    to maintain and promote competition,
— failure to examine the complaint seriously and objectively,            The applicant submits that
— infringement of essential procedural requirements and                  — The aid in question does not comply with articles 2 to 9 of
    misuse of powers in the conduct of the procedure and the                 the Code, so that the Commission has no competence to
    handling of the evidence,                                                approve it under article 1(1) of the Code.
— infringement of the Treaty and manifest error of assess-               — The contested decision purports to approve aid to under-
    ment of the law,                                                         takings or production units which cannot be considered as
                                                                             viable. Even if, contrary to the applicant’s contention, there
— breach of the obligation to take a definitive decision within              is no obligation on the Commission to demonstrate
    a reasonable time.                                                       long-term viability of undertakings or production units,
                                                                             the defendant has committed a manifest error in failing to
(1) Cases T-190/95 (OJ C 333, 9.12.1995, p. 20) and T-45/96 (OJ              consider whether the reduction of production costs of
    C 145, 18.5.1996, p. 13).                                                recipient undertakings or production units is likely to
                                                                             achieve a degression of aid in the light of falling coal prices
                                                                             on international markets, as required by article 2 (1) of the
                                                                             Code. Finally, the contested decision purports to approve


title: Case T-337/16: Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/36

         Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)
   (Case T-337/16)
   (2016/C 296/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘VERSACCINO’ — Application for registration No 11 957 685

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1172/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action;

               —

               annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 11 957 685 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those already granted;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               The applicant maintains that the decision of 6 April 2016 is undermined from the outset and is vitiated by the scant examination of the evidence, and especially by a superficial examination of the marks as regards the confusion of the Italian language to which EUIPO appears to make reference.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-274/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 180/8                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             27.7.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                             of 6 June 2002                                                                  of 13 June 2002
in Case C-274/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         in Case C-286/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                        ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the                           Telecommunications — Open network — Universal service)
                           prescribed period)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/14)
                            (2002/C 180/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-274/01, Commission of the European Communities                      In Case C-286/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: F. van                    (Agents: P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, and, subsequently, H. van
de Craen): Application for a declaration that, by failing to                  Lier) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Bréville-
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                     Viéville, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and V. Dan):
necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of                        Application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission                       force, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations
to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger                 and administrative provisions necessary to implement Direc-
transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-               tive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to                 of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network
facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-             provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service
ment in national and international transport operations                       for telecommunications in a competitive environment (OJ
(OJ 1998 L 277, p. 17), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                  1998 L 101, p. 24) and, in particular, Articles 6(3) and (4), 10,
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (First                 21 and 26 thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the                 obligations under Article 32 of that directive and Article 249
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate                 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June                  President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and
2002, in which it:                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        1.     Declares that, by failing to bring into force, within the
      comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998                       prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative
      amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation                     provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/10/EC of the
      of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator                 European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998
      and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other                     on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice
      evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these             telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a
      operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and                competitive environment and, in particular, Articles 6(3) and
      international transport operations, the Kingdom of Belgium                     (4), 10, 21 and 26 thereof, the French Republic has failed to
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                     fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                         2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                     (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-246/12: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2013 — Cat Media Pty Ltd v OHIM — Avon Products (RETANEW) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to rule)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/24

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2013 — Cat Media Pty Ltd v OHIM — Avon Products (RETANEW)
   (Case T-246/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to rule)
   2013/C 189/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cat Media Pty Ltd (Warriewood, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: U. Stelzenmüller, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 740/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Avon Products, Inc. and Cat Media Pty Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the appeal

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2004 in Case T-188/03: Joëlle Hivonnet v Council of the European Union (Officials — Education allowance — Criteria for grant — Primary schooling — Nursery school)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 29 June 2004
   in Case T-188/03: Joëlle Hivonnet v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Education allowance - Criteria for grant - Primary schooling - Nursery school)
   (2004/C 239/47)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-188/03: Joëlle Hivonnet, official of the Council of the European Union, residing in New York (United States of America), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) – application for annulment of the decision of the Council refusing to grant the applicant the education allowance for her daughter for the nursery school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 and only granting that allowance on an exceptional basis for the nursery school year 2001/2002, and a claim for compensation seeking payment of default interest on the sums corresponding to those allowances and damages for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of that decision – the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: N.J. Forwood); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.


title: Case F-45/08: Action brought on 22 April 2008 — Bernard v Europol

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/51

         Action brought on 22 April 2008 — Bernard v Europol
   (Case F-45/08)
   (2008/C 171/102)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the decision of Europol concerning the assessment of the applicant and the implicit rejection of her complaint with regard to that assessment, and, second, an order for Europol to pay damages.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the assessment of 25 July 2007 and the implicit decision to reject the complaint lodged by Ms Bernard on 23 October 2007;

               —

               Order Europol to pay damages of up to EUR 7 500;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-496/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Statul român v Tamara Văraru, Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination in the field of social security — Calculation of the amount of dependent child allowance — No implementation of EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/11

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Statul român v Tamara Văraru, Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-496/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination in the field of social security - Calculation of the amount of dependent child allowance - No implementation of EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2015/C 320/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Statul român

      Defendants: Tamara Văraru, Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question asked by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 9 October 2014.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case F-78/10: Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-78/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Pilar Antelo Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their monthly salaries from July 2009 to an increase of 1,85 %, as part of the annual adjustment of remunerations and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as its fixes the rate of adjustment of salaries at 1.85 % in accordance with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

               —

               award the applicants default interest, calculated in accordance with the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, payable in respect of all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary mentioned in pay slips from January 2010 and those for pay adjustments for the period from July 2009 to December 2009 and the salary to which they would have been entitled until the date on which the belated settlement of those salaries took place;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-144/12: Action brought on 21 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/77

         Action brought on 21 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-144/12)
   2013/C 26/163
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-90/16: Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/51

         Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate
   (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)
   (Case T-90/16)
   (2016/C 156/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character.


title: Case C-590/15 P: Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public service contracts — Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts — Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor — Professional competence — Requirement of full legal training — Recognition of diplomas)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-590/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional competence - Requirement of full legal training - Recognition of diplomas))
   (2017/C 063/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (J. Inghelram and S. Chantre, agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-215/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014  — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/9

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-215/14 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   2014/C 361/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Poland) and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. Z.o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz and K. Gruszecka-Spychala, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend operation of Commission Decision C(2014) 759 final of 11 February 2014 relating to measure S.A,35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N) — Poland — Conversion of the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-128/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège) (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2008 — Jacques Damseaux v État belge

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège) (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2008 — Jacques Damseaux v État belge
   (Case C-128/08)
   (2008/C 142/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de première instance de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

      Defendant: État belge
   Questions referred

               1.

               ‘Must Article 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits a restriction, arising from the France-Belgium Convention seeking to avoid double taxation and to establish mutual administrative and legal rules of assistance in the field of income tax, which allows partial double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France to subsist and which renders the taxation of those dividends more onerous than Belgian withholding tax alone applied to dividends distributed by a Belgian company to a Belgian resident shareholder?’

               2.

               ‘Must Article 293 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it renders wrongful Belgium's inaction in not renegotiating with France a new way of abolishing double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France?’


title: Case F-101/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — Massez And Others v Court of Justice

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — Massez And Others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-101/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/132
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 63.


title: Case C-258/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du travail de Liège (9th Chamber), by a judgment of that court of 7 June 2004 in the case of Office national de l'emploi against Ioannis Ioannidis

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du travail de Liège (9th Chamber), by a judgment of that court of 7 June 2004 in the case of Office national de l'emploi against Ioannis Ioannidis
   (Case C-258/04)
   (2004/C 201/28)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège, (9th Chamber) (Higher Labour Court, 9th Chamber, Liège), Belgium, of 7 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office national de l'emploi against Ioannis loannidis on the following question:
   Is it contrary to Community law (in particular Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the EC Treaty) for rules of a Member State (such as, in Belgium, the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 on unemployment) which provide for a tideover allowance to be given to a job seekers who are (in principle) less than 30 years old on the basis of the secondary education they have completed to apply to job seekers who are nationals of another Member State the condition, applicable equally to its own nationals, that the allowance is granted only if the required education has been completed in an educational establishment run, subsidised or recognised by one of the three national Communities (as laid down in the Royal Decree by Article 36(1)1(2)(a)), with the result that the tideover allowance is refused in the case of a young job seeker who is not a member of the family of a migrant worker, but who is a national of another Member State in which, before moving within the Union, he had pursued and completed secondary education, recognised as equivalent to the education required by the authorities of the State in which the application for the tideover allowance has been made?


title: Case C-211/04: Action brought on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/8

         Action brought on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-211/04)
   (2004/C 179/16)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio Fiorelli, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (2) laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (3) as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, in particular as regards the amendment of Articles 24, 36 and 37 of Regulation No 753/2002 concerning the protection of traditional terms.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the regulation amending Regulation No 753/2002 is vitiated by reason of:

               —

               unlawful procedure for the adoption of the regulation on the grounds of infringement of procedural rules and failure to ensure the right to be heard effectively;

               —

               failure to compare the interests of Community producers with those of producers outside the Community;

               —

               lack of power and infringement of the rules of the Council;

               —

               infringement of Article 24(3) of the TRIPS agreement.

      (1)  OJ L 55 of 24.02.2004, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ L 118 of 04.05.2004, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 179 of 14.07.1999, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-471/98)

text:
C 71/10                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
2. Declare, in the alternative, in so far as the agreement                  Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (2) of 23 July 1992
     concluded in 1995 cannot be regarded as substantially                  on access for Community air carriers to
     amending the previous agreements and hence replacing                   intra-Community routes, Council Regulation
     them, that the Republic of Finland is in breach of                     (EEC) No 2409/92 (3) of 23 July 1992 on fares and
     Article 234 of the EC Treaty, having regard also to                    rates for air services, Council Regulation (EEC)
     Article 6 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland                  No 2299/89 (4) of 24 July 1989, as amended by
     and Sweden, by not eliminating the provisions of those                 Regulation No 3089/93 (5) of 29 October 1993, on
     earlier agreements which are contrary to the Treaty, in                a code of conduct for computerised reservation
     particular Article 52 thereof, and to secondary law                    systems,     and    Council     Regulation     (EEC)
     based thereon, and by not taking all possible legal                    No 95/93 (6) of 18 January 1993 on common rules
     measures to eliminate those provisions; and                            for the allocation of slots at Community airports;
3. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                      Ð in the alternative, and additionally, declare, in so
                                                                            far as it considers that the 1995 agreement does
                                                                            not radically amend and therefore does not replace
                                                                            the agreements concluded previously, that Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                            is in breach of its obligations under Article 5 of
Case C-471/98 (7).
                                                                            the Treaty and under secondary law in not
                                                                            rescinding, in those previous agreements, the
(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.                                              provisions which are incompatible with the Treaty,
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                              in particular Article 52, and with secondary law,
(3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.                                             or by not taking all possible legislative measures to
(4) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.                                              that end;
(5) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
(7) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
                                                                    (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium
                                                                    Ð It is impossible, through the establishment of a
                         (Case C-471/98)                                common market in air transport, pursuant to
                                                                        Article 84(2) of the EC Treaty, to secure in full the
                          (1999/C 71/17)                                objective of a balanced market featuring undistorted
                                                                        competition unless the Community concludes with the
                                                                        United States an agreement covering areas such as
                                                                        those dealt with in the bilateral agreement in question,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                    since the Community alone is competent in this
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 regard, pursuant to Opinion 1/76.
on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           Ð The bilateral Belgo-American agreement affects the
                                                                        objectives, scope and operation of the internal market
                                                                        in air transport as established by all of the joint
                                                                        Community rules which made its creation possible.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             That agreement governs in particular the granting of
                                                                        rights of access to and departure from the internal
                                                                        market and the granting of rights to carriers from
(1) Ð declare that, by negotiating, signing and                         non-member countries within the Community.
         concluding in 1995, and applying individually, an
         open skies' agreement with the United States in
         the air transport sector, Belgium is in breach of its
         obligations under the Treaty, in particular                    Pursuant to the judgment in Case 22/70 (AETR')
         Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and under secondary                 (confirmed in Opinions 2/92 and 1/94), Member
         law adopted pursuant to the Treaty, in particular              States can no longer assume obligations towards
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of                     non-member countries, whether individually or
         23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, Council             collectively, if those obligations affect the rules of
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 71/11
     the internal Community market and result in                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     discrimination or distort competition. Furthermore,
     such bilateral agreements concern questions coming
     under domestic legislation on the treatment to be
     accorded to undertakings which have their registered
     office outside the Community or in third countries.           (1) Ð declare that, by negotiating, signing and
                                                                            concluding in 1995, and applying individually, an
                                                                            open skies' agreement with the United States in
                                                                            the air transport sector, Luxembourg is in breach
Ð Agreements with a non-member country having such                          of its obligations under the Treaty, in particular
     effects on the internal market in air transport cannot                 Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and under secondary
     be concluded outside the Community framework.                          law adopted pursuant to the Treaty, in particular
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of
                                                                            23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (2) of 23 July 1992
                                                                            on access for Community air carriers to
Ð The provisions on the designation of carriers                             intra-Community routes, Council Regulation
     constitute an infringement of Article 52 of the Treaty                 (EEC) No 2409/92 (3) of 23 July 1992 on fares and
     (see the arguments in Case C-466/98).                                  rates for air services, Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2299/89 (4) of 24 July 1989, as amended by
                                                                            Regulation No 3089/93 (5) of 29 October 1993, on
                                                                            a code of conduct for computerised reservation
                                                                            systems,      and     Council       Regulation   (EEC)
Ð The negotiation of this type of bilateral agreement
                                                                            No 95/93 (6) of 18 January 1993 on common rules
     constitutes a breach of the obligations on Member
                                                                            for the allocation of slots at Community airports;
     States under Article 5 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                        Ð in the alternative, and additionally, declare, in so
Ð (Alternative submission) Breach of the obligations                        far as it considers that the 1995 agreement does
     following, in the case of Belgium, from Article 234 of                 not radically amend and therefore does not replace
     the EC Treaty.                                                         the agreements concluded previously, that
                                                                            Luxembourg is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Article 5 of the Treaty and under secondary law in
(1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.                                             not rescinding, in those previous agreements, the
(2 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                             provisions which are incompatible with the Treaty,
(3 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.                                            in particular Article 52, and with secondary law,
(4 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                            or by not taking all possible legislative measures to
(5 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
(6 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.                                              that end;
                                                                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                        costs.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   in Case C-471/98 (7).
                        (Case C-472/98)
                         (1999/C 71/18)
                                                                   (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
                                                                   (3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.
                                                                   (4) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                   (5) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                (6) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                (7) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
Communities on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Frank
Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-276/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Hasselerbaan v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Hasselerbaan v Commission
   (Case T-276/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/54)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-501/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/16

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-501/17)
   (2017/C 338/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Solana López, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the court should:

               —

               declare that EU law has been infringed by the SRB in Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopted at the executive session of 7 June 2017 and in which it adopted the resolution scheme regarding the financial institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               consequently, annul that measure and, in addition, the consequential implementing measures that the SRB was able to take, all with retroactive effect.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised 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 y 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 Alvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-485/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Direct support schemes — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Identification system for agricultural parcels — Eligibility conditions for aid — Administrative controls — On-the-spot checks — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Determination of the areas eligible for aid — Remote sensing — Physical inspection of agricultural parcels)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
   (Case C-485/12) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Direct support schemes - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Identification system for agricultural parcels - Eligibility conditions for aid - Administrative controls - On-the-spot checks - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Determination of the areas eligible for aid - Remote sensing - Physical inspection of agricultural parcels))
   2014/C 175/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) — On-the-spot checks in relation to single applications under the area payment scheme — Remote sensing — Where the competent authority has found, on the basis of aerial photographs, that the application for aid submitted by a farmer is inaccurate.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 972/2007 of 20 August 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, owing to the fact that the identification system for agricultural parcels is in the course of being updated, automated cross-checks intended to verify the eligibility for aid of parcels as declared in the single payment application submitted by a farmer are supplemented by verification on the basis of recent aerial photographs, which results in the detection of inaccuracies in the application submitted, the competent authority is not required to carry out a physical inspection in the field, but, in accordance with Article 24(2) of that regulation, enjoys discretion as to the measures to be taken as a result. In particular, that authority cannot be required to carry out a physical measurement of the parcels in question where it has no doubts as to the measurement data inferred from the aerial photographs available.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26. 1. 2013.


title: Case T-160/11: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Petroci v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Removal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/22

         Order of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Petroci v Council
   (Case T-160/11) (1)

   (Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Removal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 282/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale d'opérations pétrolières de la Cote d’Ivoire Holding (Petroci Holding) (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts introduce restrictive measures which adversely affect the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the European Commission for leave to intervene

      (1)  OJ C 139 of 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-414/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
   (Case T-414/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 333/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case T-470/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the infringing conduct of the latter — Full and immediate payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary following a judgment of the General Court — Letters from the Commission demanding payment from the parent companies of the amount reimbursed by it to the subsidiary, plus late-payment interest — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Interest on late payment)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-470/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the infringing conduct of the latter - Full and immediate payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary following a judgment of the General Court - Letters from the Commission demanding payment from the parent companies of the amount reimbursed by it to the subsidiary, plus late-payment interest - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Interest on late payment))
   (2015/C 198/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie) (represented initially by A. Noël-Baron and É. Morgan de Rivery, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 or, in the alternative, reduction of the amounts claimed or, in the further alternative, annulment the late-payment interest imposed on Elf Aquitaine, in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 in so far as, in those letters, the European Commission imposed on Elf Aquitaine SA late-payment interest in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total SA is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay two fifths of the costs of Total and Elf Aquitaine and to bear three fifths of its own costs. Total and Elf Aquitaine are ordered to bear three fifths of their own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


title: Case T-50/08: Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/34

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission
   (Case T-50/08)
   (2008/C 128/73)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: C. Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               hold that the present application to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06;

               —

               determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;

               —

               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in ruling upon his application for annulment of his career development report for 2004 and of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   More specifically, the appellant contends, first, that that the CST misinterpreted Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the general provisions implementing that Article. Second, the CST misinterpreted the form of order sought by the application upon which it ruled, and it appraised the evidence wrongly. Third, the CST relied on contradictory reasoning in dismissing his application, with the result that fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by him were infringed. Fourth, the CST erred in refusing to rule on a particular claim or otherwise employed insufficient reasoning and, finally, it wrongly dismissed part of the application for lack of precision.


title: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (LEMON SYMPHONY) (Joined Case T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09) (Plant varieties — Decision by the CPVO to adapt, of its own motion, the official description of the variety LEMON SYMPHONY — Application for revocation of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY — Application for annulment of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY — Application for a Community plant variety right for the variety SUMOST 01 — Summons to attend oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Period of notice to attend of at least one month)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/17

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (LEMON SYMPHONY)
      (Joined Case T-133/08, T-134/08, T-177/08 and T-242/09) (1)

      (Plant varieties - Decision by the CPVO to adapt, of its own motion, the official description of the variety LEMON SYMPHONY - Application for revocation of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY - Application for annulment of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY - Application for a Community plant variety right for the variety SUMOST 01 - Summons to attend oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Period of notice to attend of at least one month)
      (2012/C 331/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt and, in Cases T-133/08 and T-134/08, by T. Henssler, lawyers)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented: initially by B. Kiewiet and M. Ekvad, and subsequently by M. Ekvad, acting as Agents, assisted by A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer, and, in Case T-242/09, by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

         Re:

      In Case T-133/08, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) concerning a challenge to the decision by the CPVO to adapt, of its own motion, the official description of the variety LEMON SYMPHONY in the Register of Community Plant Variety Rights; in Case T-134/08, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 006/2007) concerning an application for cancellation of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY; in Case T-177/08, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 005/2007) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the variety SUMOST 01, and, in Case T-242/09, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 23 January 2009 (Case A 010/2007), concerning an application for cancellation of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY.

         Operative part of the order

      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 23 January 2009 (Case A 010/2007) concerning an application for annulment of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY;

                  2.

                  Sets aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) concerning a challenge to the decision by the CPVO to adapt, of its own motion, the official description of the variety LEMON SYMPHONY in the Register of Community Plant Variety Rights;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action brought against that decision;

                  4.

                  Sets aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 006/2007) concerning an application for revocation of the Community plant variety right granted for the variety LEMON SYMPHONY;

                  5.

                  Sets aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 005/2007) concerning an application for the grant of a Community plant variety right for the variety SUMOST 01;

                  6.

                  Orders each party to bear its own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-60/15: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Restriction of the services applied for — no need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/26

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Dermogen Farma (ETERN JUVENTUS)
   (Case T-60/15) (1)

   ((Community Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Restriction of the services applied for - no need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 429/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA, (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dermogen Farma, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 (case R 2414/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern, SA and Dermogen Farma, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case T-646/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-646/13)
   2014/C 112/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Citizens’ Committee for the Citizens’ Initiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe and Others (represented by: E. Johansson, J. Lund and C. Lund, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2013)5969 final of 13 September 2013, published on 16 September 2013;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes the procedural requirements laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. (1)

                           —

                           The applicants state in that regard inter alia that the Commission fails to identify among the eleven topics which form the subject matter of the citizens’ initiative those which in its opinion fall outside the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. The Commission also does not state why those topics fall outside that framework.

                           —

                           As part of this plea the applicants also complain that the Commission does not state why Regulation No 211/2011 does not confer a power to register at least a part or parts of a planned citizens’ initiative.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties or of a provision for implementation of the treaties

                           —

                           Pursuant to this plea the applicants claim the infringement of Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 211/2011.

                           —

                           The applicants state in that regard that none of the topics in relation to which the Commission is to be called upon to submit proposals lies manifestly outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. They add that, even if one of the topics were to fall outside that framework, the Commission should have registered the planned citizens’ initiative in respect of the topics which in its opinion did not fall manifestly outside that framework.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-32/91: Solvay SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Abuse of a dominant position P Commission's Rules of Procedure P Authentication of a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208 /21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /298/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
                                                                        ( IV/33.133-B : Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK) ( 2 ), the Court of
in Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European               First Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended
                          Communities ( x )                             composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
(Competition — Concerted practice — Presumption of                      and D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
innocence — Administrative procedure — Rights of the                    Kalogeropoulos , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
       defence — Equality of arms — Access to the file)                 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                            ( 95/C 208/44 )
                                                                        1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /298/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-B : SodaLash —
                                                                               Solvay, CFK), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
In Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels , represented by Lucien Simont,                 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             í 1 ) OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 16 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Decision 91 /297/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/33.133-A : Soda-ash — Solvay, ICI ) ( 2 ) the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and D. P. M.                                           of 29 June 1995
Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,              in Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European
Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                                       Communities ( 1 )
1995 , in which it:
                                                                        (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —
                                                                        Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of
      19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (1V/33.133-A: Soda-ash —                                          ( 95 /C 208 /46 )
      Solvay, ICI), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        In Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
(M OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .                                        established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                                                                        Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /299/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty
in Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European              ( IV/33.133-C : Soda-ash — Solvay ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
                          Communities (')                               Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),
                                                                        composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and D.P.M.
 (Competition — Market sharing agreement —                              Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
 Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
                                                                        Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June
      decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)                  1995 , in which it:
                             ( 95/C 208/45 )
                                                                         1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /299/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)                                19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-C: Soda-ash —
                                                                               Solvay);
In Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                     (') OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 21 .
Communities (Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Georges Herbillon against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-103/97)

text:
No C 181 /20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Massimo Lombardini, residing in Brussels, represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                Case T- 16/97 (').
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Ginette Nabavi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 04/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                                                   ( 97/C 181 /41 )
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                        by Ginette Nabavi , residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
                                                                        represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Case T-16/97 (').                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
                                                                             Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Georges Herbillon
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                          ( Case T-103/97 )
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                            ( 97/C 181 /40 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 (').
by Georges Herbillon, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jorge D. Savio against
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                               the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                               ( Case T-105 /97 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     ( 97/C 181 /42 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            by Jorge D. Savio, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Case C-61/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2016 by European Bicycle Manufacturers Association against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-425/13: Giant (China) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/28

         Appeal brought on 4 February 2016 by European Bicycle Manufacturers Association against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-425/13: Giant (China) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-61/16 P)
   (2016/C 106/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Giant (China) Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the General Court's judgment;

               —

               rule on the substance and dismiss the Application for Annulment or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment; and

               —

               order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant's costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               First ground of appeal: The General Court committed an error of law by applying an incorrect legal analysis of the Council's application of Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. Contrary to the General Court's findings, Regulation 502/2013 (1) applied Article 18(1) globally to the Giant group because the Institutions lacked complete and comprehensive information about the related companies, and not only to information related to the export price of the group.

               —

               Second ground of appeal: The General Court committed an error of law in finding that the Council could not consider Giant's failure to provide basic threshold information as non-cooperation within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation. The information required was basic threshold information necessary to permit the Institutions to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the Giant group and not providing this information constituted therefore a lack of cooperation that cast doubt on the reliability of the information that was provided by Giant.

               —

               Third ground of appeal: The General Court committed an error of law in finding that there would be no risk of circumvention if Giant were granted an individual anti-dumping duty but Jinshan would not. The Institutions' concerns regarding circumvention by related companies in the present case are justified and constitute a valid additional ground for the rejection of the request for an individual antidumping duty by Giant.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 OJ L 153, p. 17


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 in Case C-18/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti): Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Perino (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 75/442/EEC — Storage of waste prior to a recovery operation — Invoking a directive in order to oppose an individual )

text:
C 369/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.12.2001
1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of television             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
signals (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51) the Kingdom of the Netherlands               19 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President                 A directive cannot, by itself, independently of any national law
of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La                        enacted by a Member State in order to implement it, have the effect
Pergola, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                    of establishing or rendering more serious the criminal liability of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which                persons who act in contravention of its provisions.
it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 du 18.3.2000.
1.    Declares that by failing to bring into force and to communicate
      all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Directive 95/47/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use
      of standards for the transmission of television signals the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive.                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                            Bielefeld by order of that court of 24 July 2001 in the
                                                                            case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS Anker
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs.
                                                                                GmbH
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                                            (Case C-349/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/10)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      Court), Bielefeld of 24 July 2001, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 17 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Second Chamber)                                    in the case of Betriebsrat ADS Anker GmbH against ADS
                                                                            Anker GmbH on the following questions:
                      of 19 September 2001                                  1.    Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on
                                                                                the establishment of a European Works Council or a
in Case C-18/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti): Criminal proceedings                      munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes
                   against Maurizio Perino (1)                                    of informing and consulting employees, in particular
                                                                                Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that an undertaking established
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive                             in the United Kingdom, which is regarded as the central
75/442/EEC — Storage of waste prior to a recovery operation                       management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)
   — Invoking a directive in order to oppose an individual)                       and Article 4(3) of the directive, or an undertaking
                                                                                established in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which
                                                                                constitutes the central management of the controlling
                          (2001/C 369/09)                                         undertaking under Article 2(1)(e) and Article 3(1) of the
                                                                                directive, is obliged to provide another undertaking
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               resident in the Federal Republic of Germany belonging to
                                                                                the same group of undertakings with information on
                                                                                undertakings and establishments belonging to the group
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                of undertakings and on their legal form and represen-
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                tation arrangements and the average total number of
                                                                                employees and their distribution across the Member Sates
                                                                                and the undertakings?
In Case C-18/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale civile e penale di Asti, Italy, for a                    2.    If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before                     affirmative: Does the obligation to provide information
that court against Maurizio Perino — on the interpretation of                     also encompass the names of the employees’ represen-
point R 13 of Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                        tation and their representatives who are to participate, on
15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by                       behalf of the employees of the undertaking or the
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991                            undertakings controlled by it, in the establishment of a
L 78, p. 32) and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of                              European Works Council?
24 may 1996 adapting Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive
75/442 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32) — the Court (Second                           (1) OJ L 254, p. 64.
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,