title: Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-152/95)

text:
No C 268/26          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
10 August 1982, should be penalized by payment of                     the conditions to which the Commission made subject
damages to compensate for the non-material damage                     approval of the programme in question. The applicant
suffered, to which should be added reimbursement of the               affirms in this respect that it has scrupulously complied with
fees of the doctors whom he was obliged to consult in the             both the rules and the conditions and stresses in particular
course of this procedure .                                            the fact that there was never any mention of any prohibition
                                                                      whatsoever on subcontracting. The applicant also claims
                                                                      that, in the present case, there has been a breach of the
                                                                      legitimate expectations flowing from the initial approval of
                                                                      the project.
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by INEF — Instituto
Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda, against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-151 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 268/55 )                              Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides
                                                                      Co Inc against the Commission of the European
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                   Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-152/95 )
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 268/56 )
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1995 by
INEF — Instituto Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda,                               (Language of the case: French)
whose registered office is at 85 Rua Breiner, Porto,
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia              An action against the Commission of the European
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Chambers of Dr Jacques Schroeder, Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1995 by
Heinrich Heine, Luxembourg.                                           Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc, established at Kavala
                                                                      ( Greece ), represented by Edouard Didier and Joël Grange,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— annul the decision of the Commission of 2 December
                                                                      at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde .
     1991 , notified to the applicant by a letter from the
     Commission of 12 May 1995 ,                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             — declare that the Commission has incurred liability
                                                                           pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Treaty of Rome,
The applicant, a Portuguese sociedade por quotas ( limited            — consequently, order the Commission to make good the
liability company ), challenges a decision of the Commission               damage suffered by the applicant and to pay to the latter
in which it decided not to consider eligible, within the                   the sum of ECU 20 403 788 ,
meaning of the Community rules on the European Social
Fund ( ESF) programmes, certain expenditure in respect of a           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
training programme intended for 2 740 young persons . On                   expenses, evidence of which will be supplied at a later
the basis of that decision, DAFSE ( Departamento para                      date .
Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu — the Portuguese
 European Social Fund Agency) required the applicant to                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 repay Esc 17 323 265 and Esc 14 173 581 in connection
 with the contributions of the European Social Fund and the            The applicant, a company incorporated under Greek law,
 Portuguese State respectively in the context of financing the         engaged primarily in the processing and sale of tobacco in
 aforementioned programme .                                            Greece and abroad, claims compensation for the damage
                                                                       suffered by it as a result of the Commission's refusal , in June,
 The applicant alleges in the first place that Article 190 of the      August and November 1990 , to allocate to the applicant
 Treaty has been infringed since the contested decision does           certain consignments of tobacco held by the Greek
 not state any reasons or grounds whatsoever for finding not           intervention agency, despite the fact that it had offered the
 eligible the expenditure in question .                                best terms . Thereafter, it was not until 11 months later that
                                                                       those stocks were again placed on the market, but on terms
 Furthermore, the decision is contrary to the rights of the            which a medium-sized undertaking such as the applicant
 defence of the applicant since it was adopted without the             could not possibly fulfil. The Commission decided to sell
 applicant having been heard beforehand.                               105 986 276 kg, divided into 11 consignments. Each of
 Thirdly, contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)                    those consignments comprised quantities of tobacco of a
 No 2950/83 , the Commission did not give a hearing to the             specified variety which were held by the intervention
 Portuguese State before taking the disputed decision.                 agencies of the various Member States of the Community
                                                                       concerned . That consolidation made it virtually impossible
 Finally, the applicant alleges that there has been an                 for small and medium-sized undertakings to have access to
 infringement of the applicable Community rules as well as of          the tobacco in question, in view of the considerable volumes
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/27
contained in each consignment, the obligation to provide            reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 25 of
security to each of the intervention agencies, and the              the Staff Regulations of officials .
requirement that tenderers must have a commercial
structure in each Member State . The refusal of the                 The applicants also plead an infringement of the terms of the
applicant's tender occurred during a period of one and a half       notice of competition, in that the selection board failed to
years throughout which the defendant, contrary to its               have regard to the nature of the oral test as described in the
former practice, either did not sell any intervention tobacco       said notice . They consider, first, that the candidates from the
at all or sold only to very large international undertakings,       Secretariat, into which category the applicants fall, were
thereby preventing small and medium-sized undertakings in           treated less favourably than their colleagues engaged in
the tobacco sector from obtaining any supplies whatever.            work falling directly within the administrative, budgetary,
                                                                    financial, accounting or technical fields, inasmuch as the
The applicant considers that the Commission has                     files to be dealt with for the purposes of the tests related only
committed a manifest breach of overriding principles of law,        to those fields and not to the Secretariat .
such as the principles of equality and proportionality, and
also a manifest error of assessment, by preventing the entire
class of small and medium-sized Greek undertakings from             They further point out that not all of the members of the
participating in the tendering procedures . The damage thus         selection board participated in all of the oral tests for all of
caused to the applicant goes far beyond the normal risks            the candidates; consequently, the contested decisions were
inherent in the      exercise   of activities  in the   sector      adopted in breach not only of the rules governing the
concerned .                                                         activities of selection boards but also of the principle of
                                                                    non-discrimination and equal treatment between
                                                                    candidates .
                                                                    Lastly, the applicants consider that the decision whereby,
                                                                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Action brought on 10 August 1995 by Luigia Dricot and 29            with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
others against the Commission of the European                       posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
                          Communities
                                                                    was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
                       ( Case T-159/95 )                            of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
                         ( 95/C 268/57 )                            Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
                                                                    intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 1995
by Luigia Dricot, Roland Cardoen, Carrelo da Cunha,
Martine Cluyssen, Marie de Wasseige, Rosa De Briones,
Marie-Thérèse De Smedt, Anna Maria Del Grande,                       Action brought on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao against the
Pascaline Deuquet, Mari Doncel , Valente Erasmo, Karine                             Council of the European Union
 Eulaerts, Lorella Feltrin, Yolanda Focci , Christa Forman,                                 ( Case T-161 /95 )
 Rodriguez Guadalupe, Odette Hubert, Jocelyne Husson,                                         ( 95/C 268/58 )
 Sheila Kinsella , Rosario Martinez Berzal , Maria
 Maurer-Reichl , Giordano Merletti, Erik Neesgaard, Marina
 Ogle, Soren Sorensen, Luciana Tenivella, Christiane Unden,                          (Language of the case: French)
 Myriam Van Dam, Rita Verschuren and Aurore Zanchet,
 represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
 Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          An action against the Council of the European Union was
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.                              Communities on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
                                                                     Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
 — annul the decision of the selection board for internal            Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
     competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicants a
     lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required          The applicant claims that the Court should :
     and excluding them from the list of successful
     candidates,                                                     — annul the contested staff report,
 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                     — award the sum of Bfrs 250 000, to be increased or
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      decreased as appropriate during the course of the
                                                                          proceedings, as compensation for the material damage
 The applicants maintain, first that the contested decisions              suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
 are vitiated by the complete absence of any statement of                 been denied any chance of promotion,


title: Case C-603/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres (France) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres (France) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale
   (Case C-603/11)
   2012/C 39/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hervé Fontaine

      Defendant: Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale

      Question referred

   Do Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007 and which entered into force in France on 1 December 2009 — preclude national legislation such as that arising from Article L 112-1 of the French Code de la Mutualité (the Code governing mutual companies), in so far as the interpretation of that legislation would prohibit mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided, whereas such a restriction is not imposed on other companies also providing supplementary health insurance whether governed by the Code des Assurances (the Insurance Code) or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale (the Social Security Code)?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 November 1995 in Case C-465/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (Regulation - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - National court - Interim relief)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 16/ 1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 9 November 1995                                                      of 9 November 1995
in Case C-426/93 : Federal Republic of Germany v. Council               in Case C-465/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   of the European Union ( J )                          the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main ): Atlanta
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EEC) No 2 1 86/93 on                Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt
Community coordination in drawing up business registers                              für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (')
for statistical purposes — Legal basis — Principle of                   (Regulation — Reference for a preliminary ruling —
                         proportionality)                               Assessment of validity — National court — Interim
                            96/C 16/01 )                                                              relief)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-426/93 : Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents :
Ernst Roder and Hans-Jörg Niemeyer ) v. Council of the
                                                                        In Case C-465/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
European Union ( Agents : Jill Aussant and Klaus Borchers ),
supported by the Commission of the European                             of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
Communities ( Agent: Jürgen Grunwald ) — application for                ( Administrative Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a
the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2186/93 of               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
22 July 1993 on Community coordination in drawing up                    court between Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and
business registers for statistical purposes ( OJ No L 1 96 , p . 1 )    Others and Bundesamt fur Ernàhrung und Forstwirtschaft
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                     — on the interpretation of Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, and
President, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                more particularly on the national court's power to order
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                    interim measures disapplying a regulation pending a
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.                preliminary ruling by the Court on its validity — the Court,
Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator,             Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
 for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 November 1995 , the             ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler
operative part of which is as follows :                                  ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                         C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
 1 . the application is dismissed;                                      Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
2 . the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the               judgment on 9 November 1995 , in which it rules :
      costs;
                                                                         1 . Article 189 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as not
 3 . The Commission of the European Communities shall                         precluding national courts from granting interim relief
      bear its own costs.                                                     to settle or regulate the disputed legal positions or
                                                                              relationships with reference to a national administrative
 (') OJ No C 332 , 8 . 12 . 1993 .                                            measure based on a Community Regulation which is the
                                                                              subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling on its
                                                                              validity;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 1 . 96
2 , such interim relief can be ordered by the national court            of the grounds of the order for reference, has disclosed no
      only if:                                                          factor of such a kind as to affect their validity.
      — that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity         H OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
         of the Community Aft and, if the validity of the
         contested Act is not already in issue before the Court
         of Justice, itself refers the question to the Court of
         Justice;                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 9 November 1995
      — there is urgency, in that the interim relief is necessary
         to avoid serious and irreparable damage being                  in Case C-475/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
         caused to the party seeking the relief;                        from the Sozialgericht Speyer): Jean-Louis Thévenon and
                                                                        Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt v. Landesversicherungsanstalt
      — the court takes due account of the Community                                              Rheinland-Pfalz (')
         interest; and
                                                                        (Social security — Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)
      — in its assessment of all those conditions, it respects          No 1408/71 — Replacement by Regulation (EEC)
         any decisions of the Court ofJustice or the Court of           No 1408/71 of social security conventions concluded
         First Instance ruling on the lawfulness of the                                      between Member States)
          Regulation or on an application for interim                                                 ( 96/C 16/04 )
          measures seeking similar interim relief at
          Community level.                                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
i 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-475/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Sozialgericht Speyer ( Social Court,
                                                                        Speyer ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Louis
                       of 9 November 1995                               Thévenon and Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt ( Social Assistance
in Case C-466/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               Office of the City of Speyer ) of the one part
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Atlanta                      and the Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz
Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt                   ( Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Insurance Office ) of the
             für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (')                      other part on the interpretation of Council Regulation
                                                                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
 (Bananas — Common organization ofthe market — Import                   social security schemes to employed persons, to
               regime — Assessment of validity)                         self-employed persons and to members of their families
                             ( 96/ C 16/03 )                            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                (Language of the case: German)                          No L 230, p . 6 ), and of Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann
In Case C-466/93 : reference to the Court under Article 1-77             ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht                            Judges; Advocate-General: G. Cosmas; Registrar: D.
 ( Administrative Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a                        Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, has given a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                judgment on 9 November 1995 , in which it rules:
court between Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and
 Others and Bundesamt für Ernàhrung und Forstwirtschaft                 Articles 48 (2) and SI of the EC Treaty must be interpreted
— on the validity of Title IV and Article 21 ( 2 ) of Council            as meaning that they do not preclude the replacement by
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
 common organization of the market in bananas ( OJ No                    the application of social security schemes to employed
 L 47, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                  persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
 Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.             families moving within the Community, as amended and
 Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.              updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of
 Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho               2 June 1983, pursuant to Article 6 thereof, of a convention
 de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.              binding two Member States exclusively where, prior to the
Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                              entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , an
 Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for              insured person completed insurance periods in only one of
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 1995 , in             the signatory States, even where the application of the
 which it rules :                                                        bilateral social security convention would have placed that
                                                                         insured person in a more favourable position.
 Consideration of Title IV and Article 21 (2) of Council
 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 common organization of the market in bananas, in the light


title: Joined Cases T-102/11 and T-369/12 to T-371/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks IP ZONE, EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)
   (Joined Cases T-102/11 and T-369/12 to T-371/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks IP ZONE, EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 129/21
   Language of the cases: English

      Parties

      Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2010 (Case R 1125/2010-2) and 12 June 2012 (Cases R 1451/2011-2, R 1452/2011-2 and R 1453/2011-2) concerning applications for registration of the sign IP ZONE and of the signs EUROPE IP ZONE, IP ZONE EUROPE and EUROPEAN IP ZONE, respectively, as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders American Express Marketing & Development Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case T-111/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Unitec Bio v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/55

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Unitec Bio v Council
   (Case T-111/14)
   2014/C 112/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unitec Bio SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case T-126/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Financial correction applied in respect of the non-reporting of interest — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to account for interest — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Principle of equivalence — Obligation of due diligence)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-126/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Financial correction applied in respect of the non-reporting of interest - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to account for interest - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Principle of equivalence - Obligation of due diligence))
   (2016/C 016/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. K. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands a financial correction amounting to EUR 4 703 231,78 in respect of the non-reporting of interest on claims relating to the late payment of additional levies before 1 April 1993 and on export refunds wrongly paid before 1 April 1995;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-144/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/59/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-144/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/59/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 48/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-144/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 30 March 2005– the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-545/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB
   (Case C-545/13)
   2014/C 15/09
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abcur AB

      Defendants: Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court), for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) be regarded as constituting a medicinal product within the meaning of either Article 3(1) or Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, the same dosage and the same form?

               2.

               If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Directive 2001/83, can Directive 2005/29 (3) concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be applicable in parallel with Directive 2001/83 in respect of the purported advertising measures?

               3.

               If a prescription medicinal product for human use which is prepared and supplied in the circumstances at issue in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by (i) Directive 2006/114 (4) concerning misleading and comparative advertising and/or (ii) Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices?

               4.

               If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with Question 3, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use or attachment of a product name, product number and ATC code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product and information thereon via an electronic health care ordering service and via an undertakings’ own homepage, supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national trade organisation, supply of information on the medicinal product in the Apoteket’s Central Product Register and the associated register (JACA), supply of information on the medicinal product in another national information database for medicinal products (SIL), supply of information via the Apoteket Terminal System (ATS) or similar dispensing system, provision of information on an undertakings own or a competing supplier’s medicinal product in correspondence with doctors’ surgeries and patient organisations, marketing of the medicinal product, measures relating to pharmaceutical checks on the medicinal product and competing medicinal products, failure to notify documented and relevant differences between products, failure to notify the contents of an undertaking’s own medicinal product and the assessment of the medicinal product by the Läkemedelsverket (Swedish Medical Products Agency), failure to inform the health care service of the Läkemedelsverket’s scientific advisory board’s assessment of competing products, to maintain a fixed price level for the medicinal product, to set a validity period of three (3) months for a prescription, to dispense the medicinal product from a pharmacy instead of a competing medicinal product despite the fact that the patient has a prescription for that competing product, and to hinder and prevent market transfers of standardised preparations to the competing medicinal product, including local pharmacies refusing delivery of the competing medicinal product, and application of a fixed price as part of the scheme under which medicines are eligible for subsidies without a prior decision from the national authority) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

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

      (4)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-450/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-incorporation of Directive 95/46/EC)

text:
C 317/8                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            10.11.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                          of 4 October 2001
                                                                            in Case C-468/00: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-450/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                              ties v French Republic (1)
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-                 Directive 96/50/EC — Carriage of goods and passengers in
               incorporation of Directive 95/46/EC)                         the Community — Harmonisation of the conditions for
                                                                            obtaining national boatmasters’ certificates for inland water-
                                                                             ways — Non-implementation within the prescribed period)
                            (2001/C 317/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/14)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-450/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: X. Lewis) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       In Case C-468/00: Commission of the European Communities
N. Mackel) — application for declaration that, by failing to                (Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
bring into force, within the prescribed period, the laws,                   and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that, by failing
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of                   necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of
the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of                         23 July 1996 on the harmonisation of the conditions for
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and              obtaining national boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of
on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),                   goods and passengers by inland waterways in the Community
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31), or, in any event, by not notifying them
obligations under Article 32 of that Directive — the Court                  to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                     obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;                    composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it:                                    C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                            a judgment on 20 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary     1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament                 the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of                   comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on
      individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and               the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      on the free movement of such data, the Grand Duchy of                        boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32             by inland waterways in the Community, the French Republic
      of that directive;                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                   (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case T-529/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Moises Bermejo Garde against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2012 in Case F-51/10, Bermejo Garde v EESC

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/15

         Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Moises Bermejo Garde against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2012 in Case F-51/10, Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case T-529/12 P)
   2013/C 55/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 25 September 2012 in Case F-51/10 in so far as (i) it rejects as inadmissible the forms of order seeking the annulment of all of the decisions adopted on the basis of EESC vacancy notice No 43/09, (ii) it does not give judgment on the forms of order seeking that the respondent be ordered to pay EUR 1 000 in damages, and (iii) does not give judgment on the substantive pleas raised in support of his first form of order seeking the annulment of EESC vacancy notice No 43/09;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           grant the appellant’s second and third forms of order sought at first instance and thus,

                                       —

                                       annul all of the decisions adopted on the basis of EESC vacancy notice No 43/09;

                                       —

                                       order the respondent to pay EUR 1 000 in damages;

                           —

                           grant the appellant’s first form of order sought at first instance also on the basis of the substantive please which he has raised and, accordingly, annul EESC vacancy notice No 43/09 also by virtue of those substantive pleas;

               —

               order the respondent to pay all of the costs incurred at both instances.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises three grounds in support of his appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: infringement of the requirement to comply with the pre-litigation procedure and an infringement of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal rejected as inadmissible the appellant’s head of claim seeking the annulment of all of the decisions adopted on the basis of EESC vacancy notice No 43/09.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: a denial of justice, an infringement of the fundamental right of access to justice and an infringement of the duty to state reasons, since the Civil Service Tribunal did not give judgment on the appellant’s head of claim seeking damages.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of the proper administration of justice, since the Civil Service Tribunal did not give judgment on the substantive pleas raised at first instance in support of the appellant’s head of claim seeking the annulment of EESC vacancy notice No 43/09.


title: Case C-239/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Application for registration of a trade mark for a range of goods and services — Examination of the sign by the competent authority — Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances — Jurisdiction of the national court seised of an action)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
   (Case C-239/05) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Application for registration of a trade mark for a range of goods and services - Examination of the sign by the competent authority - Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances - Jurisdiction of the national court seised of an action)
   (2007/C 82/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy

      Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau
   Objet
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104 EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Application for registration of the trade mark ‘The Kitchen Company ’— Examination of the sign by the competent authority — Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances — Judgment in Koninklijke KPN Nederland

   Re:
   First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               when refusing registration of a trade mark, the competent authority is required to state in its decision its conclusion for each of the individual goods and services specified in the application for registration, regardless of the manner in which that application was formulated. However, where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services, the competent authority may use only general reasoning for all of the goods or services concerned;

               —

               it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing the decision of the competent authority from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark separately for each of the individual goods and services specified in the trade mark application, where neither that decision nor that application related to categories of goods or services or goods or services considered separately;

               —

               it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing a decision of the competent authority from taking account of facts and circumstances which arose after that decision had been taken.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Order of the President of 28 August 2015 in Case E-22/14 Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

text:
               29.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/32

         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
   of 28 August 2015
   in Case E-22/14
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (2016/C 357/12)
   With respect to the application from Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS of 10 November 2014 seeking annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2014, the President of the Court made an Order of 28 August 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Case E-22/14 is removed from the Register.

               2.

               The applicants and the EFTA Surveillance Authority are to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The intervener is to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-222/06: Action brought on  16 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-222/06)
   (2006/C 165/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive expired on 15 June 2003.

      (1)   OJ 2001 L 344, p. 76.


title: Case T-248/11: Action brought on 12 May 2011 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/28

         Action brought on 12 May 2011 — International Engine Intellectual Property Company v OHIM (PURE POWER)
   (Case T-248/11)
   2011/C 211/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Engine Intellectual Property Company, LLC (Warrenville, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2011 in case R 2310/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               Set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PURE POWER’ for goods in class 12

      Decision of the Trade Marks Department: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as well as the ‘general principles of trademark law’, as the Board of Appeal found that the mark applied for was of descriptive character for the goods in respect of which registration was sought and devoid of any distinctiveness.


title: Case T-185/14: Action brought on 14 March 2014 — José Freitas v Council and Parliament

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/34

         Action brought on 14 March 2014 — José Freitas v Council and Parliament
   (Case T-185/14)
   2014/C 184/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Freitas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application to be admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 December 2013 (OJ L 354, p. 132);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 49 TFEU, in so far as the profession of notary falls within the scope of application of Article 49 TFEU regarding freedom of establishment and does not fall within the exercise of official authority within the meaning of Article 51 TFEU. The profession of notary cannot therefore be excluded from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36/EC. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, the notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities being excluded in a general and absolute manner from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36/EC.

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Case T-331/05: Action brought on 1 September 2005 — IKEA/OHIM

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/28

         Action brought on 1 September 2005 — IKEA/OHIM
   (Case T-331/05)
   (2005/C 281/53)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands) [represented by: J. Gulliksson, J. Olsson, lawyers]

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

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of July 1, 2005 in case R 799/2004-1, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark consisting of the colour combination blue and yellow for goods and services in classes 20 and 35 (furniture, advertising etc.) — application No 3 160 363

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark is sufficiently distinctive per se to be registrable and further has acquired distinctiveness through use in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum price for producers)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/3
respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section               1.    Dismisses the action;
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the French                 2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Republic, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:               (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3     .Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                             24 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia
                                                                                Construções Lda (1)
                                                                           (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum
                                                                                wage)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/05)
                      of 27 November 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum
                        price for producers)
                                                                           In Case C-164/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                          (2002/C 84/04)                                   EC by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Germany) for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the infringement proceedings brought
                                                                           before that court against Portugaia Construções Lda, on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (now Article 50 EC) and of Directive 96/71/EC of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
                                                                           concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
                                                                           provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
In Case C-146/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted             D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges,
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                  Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                 Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
application for annulment of Commission Decision                           which it has ruled:
1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                1.    In assessing whether the application by the host Member State
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                         to service providers established in another Member State of
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34),                       domestic legislation laying down a minimum wage is compat-
in so far as it disallowed ITL 7 421 939 820 of expenditure                      ible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
incurred by the Italian Republic for aid for the processing of                   Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
tomatoes — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Mack-                      EC), it is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the
en, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann                            national courts to determine whether, considered objectively,
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                       that legislation provides for the protection of posted workers. In
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                  that regard, although the declared intention of the legislature
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in                      cannot be conclusive, it may nevertheless constitute an indication
which it:                                                                        as to the objective pursued by the legislation.


title: Case T-462/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/49

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission
   (Case T-462/15)
   (2015/C 320/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd (Tai Seng SEZ, Cambodia) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, to the extent that it concerns the applicant (OJ L 122/4);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred, as well as to bear its own costs; and

               —

               order any interveners in these proceedings to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred for such intervention, as well as to bear their own legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community caused by manifest error of assessment in law and fact on the Commission’s part in relation to the existence of circumvention and the nature of the facts available.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission has no evidence in its hands to support any finding that the frames in question originate in China.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges that on the contrary, all evidence submitted by the applicant supports that the bicycle frames in question originate in Vietnam.

                           —

                           Finally, according to the applicant, the Commission does not have the power neither on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 nor on the basis of the case law of the Court to simply conclude, by default, that the applicant was engaged in the transhipment of the product concerned from China.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community caused by manifest error of assessment in law and fact on the Commission’s part in relation to the existence of assembly operations on the part of the applicant and breach of the duty of care.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission was required to use the actual information and data provided by the applicant as the basis for assessing its situation. According to the applicant, the use of the third-party benchmarks for this purpose is therefore not permitted where a reasonable and justifiable explanation is provided for actual data.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the Commission made a further infringement of the obligation to correctly appraise the production costs of the applicant when it reclassified the parts used to the make the applicant’s first sale to the European Union market as originating in China, though they originated in Vietnam. In doing so, the Commission allegedly also breached its duty of care.

                           —

                           Also, so the applicant claims, the Commission miscalculated the correct energy and rental costs by incorrectly using different factors in allocating these respective costs. The same miscalculation allegedly occurred when the Commission calculated that the company was operating at 13 % of its production capacity during the relevant period.

                           —

                           Finally, according to the applicant, the Commission declined to accept any depreciation costs for the fixed assets, though the applicant had furnished evidence that the company’s shareholder was reimbursed by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure by the Commission to properly give due weight to information and data submitted by the Applicant in response to final disclosure contrary to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission’s complete discard of all the additional information provided by the applicant demonstrates that this information was not given the due weight it should have received.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the additional information and evidence provided by the applicant to dispute the Commission’s finding of transhipment came from several different independent sources.

                           —

                           Finally, so the applicant claims, although it did not have any evidence or indication that the frames originated in China, the Commission should have concluded that the weight of evidence pointed in the direction of the Vietnamese origin of the frames.


title: Case C-480/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Request for a preliminary ruling — Tariff classification — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 3204, 3212 and 3822 — Substance producing, by chemical reaction and exposure to a laser light, a fluorescent effect intended for the analysis of white blood cells)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/24

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-480/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Tariff classification - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 3204, 3212 and 3822 - Substance producing, by chemical reaction and exposure to a laser light, a fluorescent effect intended for the analysis of white blood cells))
   2014/C 315/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sysmex Europe GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that a product, composed of solvents and of a polymethine-based substance, which, although it may have a weak and non-permanent dyeing effect on textiles, is not in practice used for its dyeing properties and is intended exclusively for the analysis of white blood cells, by means of the deposition of ions in defined components of those blood cells, which, when exposed to laser light, become fluorescent for a limited period, comes under heading 3822 of the Combined Nomenclature relating to laboratory reagents.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 in Case T-184/00: Zisis Khristou Drouvis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Legality of Article 82(1), second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment — Principles of freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment within the Community)

text:
C 171/22                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 May 2003
                       of 26 February 2003
                                                                             in Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-184/00: Zisis Khristou Drouvis v Commission
                of the European Communities ( 1)                             (Officials — Annual leave — Posting to a third country —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/32)
(Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Legality of
Article 82(1), second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations —                                        (Language of the case: French)
Principle of equal treatment — Principles of freedom of
movement for workers and freedom of establishment within
                          the Community)
                                                                             In Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman, official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                             Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an
                          (2003/C 171/31)                                    address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and
                                                                             F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           decision of 25 May 2000 by which the Commission reduced
                                                                             the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one day — the Court
                                                                             of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                             President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on
In Case T-184/00 Zisis Khristou Drouvis, a former official of                7 May 2003 in which it:
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Maroussi, Attica (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer,              1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 25 May 2000 in so
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the                              far as it reduces the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                          day;
and P. Anestis), supported by the Council of the European                    2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Union (Agents: D. Zahariou and A. Pilette) — application
seeking the amendment of the Commission’s decision, notified
to the applicant on 30 November 1999, determining his                        (1 ) OJ C 95, 24. 3. 2001.
pension and applying the weighting for Greece, so that the
weighting applied is the same as that on pensions paid to
pensioners residing in the United Kingdom or, in the alterna-
tive, the same as that on pensions paid to pensioners residing
in Belgium — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                                of 20 May 2003
26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                             (Officials — Open competitions — Oral test — Exclusion
2.     Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.                   from the list of successful candidates — Knowledge of
                                                                             languages of the members of the selection board — Equal
                                                                                treatment)
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ No C 335 of 25.11.00.
                                                                             In Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner, residing in Luxem-
                                                                             bourg, represented by L. Thielen, lawyer, against Commission


title: Case T-407/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/33

         Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-407/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/61
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 1(3) and (4) of and Annex 2 to Commission Decision C(2010) 4593 of 8 July 2010 concerning the major project for ‘reconstruction of the Budapest-Kelenföld Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line, Section I, phase 1’ forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for financial structural aid granted by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, in so far as those provisions lay down the maximum quantity to which the co-financing rate should be applied in such a way as to exclude payments of VAT from eligible expenditure.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests in part Commission Decision C(2010)4593 of 8 July 2010 concerning the major project for ‘reconstruction of the Budapest-Kelenföld Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line, section I, phase 1’ forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for financial structural aid granted by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund under the Convergence objective. In that Decision, the Commission authorises the payment of a contribution to that major project from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. In addition, the Commission takes the view that recoverable VAT could not be included in the maximum quantity to which the priority co-financing rate of the operational programme for the major project in question was to be applied.
   In the grounds for its application, the applicant claims that the Commission adopted the contested Decision in breach of the provisions of European Union law applicable in this area and Article 56(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006, (2) in particular.
   The applicant considers that Article 3(e) of Regulation No 1084/2006 clearly establishes that recoverable value added tax is not eligible for support in the form of a contribution from the Cohesion Fund. In the opinion of the applicant it follows unequivocally from that provision, on the other hand, that non-recoverable value added tax is eligible for support. Accordingly, having regard to the fact that, under European Union or national law on value added tax the beneficiary of the major project which is the subject of the contested Decision (Nemzeti Infrastruktúra Fejlesztő Zrt.) is not a taxable person, so that it cannot claim back the input value added tax charged to it, the applicant argues that, in the contested Decision, it is not open to the Commission to exclude expenditure arising from that tax.
   Furthermore, the applicant complains that, given that the Commission did not consider to be eligible expenditure which Regulation No 1084/2006 did not include under expenditure which was not eligible and which the equivalent national legislation expressly described as eligible expenditure, by the contested Decision, the Commission was depriving the Member States of the powers devolved on them by Article 56(4) of Regulation No 1083/2006.
   The applicant also alleges that the Commission’s assertion that the value added tax charged to the beneficiary will be ‘recoverable’ through the value added tax paid on the fee collected by the management of the infrastructure built by the beneficiary is a very wide interpretation of the concept of ‘recoverable value added tax’ used in Article 3(e) of Regulation No 1084/2006, which the wording of that provision does not support, and is, moreover, contrary to the legislation of the European Union on value added tax. According to the applicant, the beneficiary which carries out the construction work and the bodies managing the built infrastructure are independent of one another and have only an indirect relationship, as a result of the relevant legal provisions and, therefore, not through commercial transactions. In those circumstances, the applicant claims that the beneficiary is in fact obliged to bear the final burden of the VAT charged.
   Finally, the applicant states that neither Regulation No 1083/2006 nor Regulation No 1084/2006 allows an interpretation to the effect that the Commission, when assessing eligible expenditure, including eligible value added tax, could base its decision on the fact that the Member State could have opted for a different legal solution as regards the organisation of the project and the management of the infrastructure. In that regard, the applicant takes the view that running the administration of national infrastructures and related public services is, essentially, the task of the Member States. Similarly, the applicant considers that, provided that they comply with the requirements laid down by European Union law, the Commission has to accept the option chosen by the Member State, together with the consequences for the assessment of eligible expenditure entailed by the beneficiary’s status as a taxable person or non-taxable person.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ 2006 210, p. 79).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 1999 in Case C-303/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Verbraucherschutzverein eV v. Sektkellerei G. C. Kessler GmbH und Co. (Brand name - Sparkling wine - Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92 - Description of product - Consumer protection - Risk of confusion)

text:
C 86/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 28 January 1999                                                   of 4 February 1999
in Case C-303/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     in Case C-103/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Verbraucherschutzverein eV v.
                                                                     the Tiroler Landesvergabeamt): Josef Köllensperger GmbH
        Sektkellerei G. C. Kessler GmbH und Co. (1)
                                                                     & Co. KG, Atzwanger AG v. Gemeindeverband Bezirks-
(Brand name Ð Sparkling wine Ð Article 13(2)(b) of                                      krankenhaus Schwaz (1)
Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92 Ð Description of product
       Ð Consumer protection Ð Risk of confusion)                    (National court or tribunal' within the meaning of
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty Ð Procedures for the award
                        (1999/C 86/10)                               of public supply contracts and public works contracts Ð
                                                                               Body responsible for review procedures)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/11)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-303/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a                             published in the European Court Reports)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Verbraucherschutzverein eV and Sektkellerei
G. C. Kessler GmbH und Co. Ð on the interpretation of
Article 13(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92              In Case C-103/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of 13 July 1992 laying down general rules for the                    of the EC Treaty from the Tiroler Landesvergabeamt
description and presentation of sparkling wines and                  (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
aerated sparkling wines (OJ L 231, 13.8.1992, p. 9) Ð the            pending before that tribunal between Josef Köllensperger
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. P. Puissochet,                GmbH & Co.KG, Atzwanger AG and Gemeindeverband
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.              Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz Ð on the interpretation of
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                             Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
(Rapporteur) Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.               21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in               application of review procedures to the award of public
which it has ruled:                                                  supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, 30.12.1988,
                                                                     p. 33) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G.
On a proper construction of Article 13(2)(b) of Council              Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,
Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92 of 13 July 1992 laying                   Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
down general rules for the description and presentation of           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines, it is not               judgment on 4 February 1999, in which it has ruled:
sufficient for the prohibition laid down by that provision
to be applied to find that a brand name which includes a
word appearing in the description of one of the products
there mentioned is, as such, likely to be confused with              The conditions set out in Article 2(8) of Council Directive
that description. It is also necessary to establish that use         89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of
of the brand name is in fact likely to mislead the                   the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
consumers concerned and thus affect their economic                   relating to the application of review procedures to the
behaviour. In that respect, it is for the national court to          award of public supply and public works contracts do not
have regard to the presumed expectations, in regard to               apply to provisions such as those governing the
that information, of an average consumer who is                      composition and functioning of the Tiroler Landesvergabe-
reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and                amt.
circumspect.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Case C-48/12: Order of the President of the Court of 8 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-48/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/44
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.