title: Case T-366/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/34

         Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
   (Case T-366/07)
   (2007/C 283/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prestige Cosmetics Srl (Anzola Emilia, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July 2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled;

               —

               the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006;

               —

               the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE’ for inter alia goods in class 3

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prestige Cosmetics Srl

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘prestige’ for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks as the goods covered by the trade marks are dissimilar and the trade marks clearly differ.


title: Case C-196/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2010 — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/37

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2010 — Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
      (Case C-196/10)
      (2010/C 161/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Paderborner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

         Question referred

      Is the Combined Nomenclature, in the version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (1) and in the version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a product described as a ‘malt beer base’ with an alcoholic strength by volume of approximately 14 %, obtained from brewed beer which has been clarified and then subjected to ultrafiltration, by which the concentration of ingredients such as bitter substances and proteins has been reduced, is to be classified under heading 2208?

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1.

         (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, amending Annex I to Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2003 in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Promotion — Comparative examination of merits)

text:
C 304/26               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 2003
                     of 23 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candi-
                            (OHIM) (1)                                     dates’ merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of
                                                                                power)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/47)
(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and
Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —
Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination                                         (Language of the case: French)
conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the
evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition
                             Division)                                     In Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by É. Boi-
                                                                           gelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                         (2003/C 304/46)                                   against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           J. Currall, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Waelbroeck) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 July
                                                                           2001 rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of head
                   (Language of the case: English)                         of unit ‘Legal affairs and control of enforcement of Community
                                                                           provisions’ of the ‘General Matters’ Directorate of the Taxation
                                                                           and Customs Union Directorate General — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
In Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   on 14 October 2003, in which it:
(Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation              1.    Dismisses the action;
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agent: O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings                 2.    Order each party to bear its own costs.
before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being: LHS (UK) Ltd, established in
Cheadle Hulme (United Kingdom): Appeal against the decision                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September
2001 (Case R-738/2000-3) concerning opposition proceed-
ings between Henkel KGaA and LHS (UK) Ltd, the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it:
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                European Communities (1)
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-738/2000-3);
                                                                           (Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Pro-
                                                                                motion — Comparative examination of merits)
2.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                                                    (2003/C 304/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-241/02: Daniel Callbaut, an official of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg),
                                                                           represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers,
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 304/27
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                    (agent: L. Fraguas Gardea), Sogecable SA, established in Madrid,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                  represented by S. Martinez Lage and H. Brokelmann, lawyers,
Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annul-                DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital SA (Vía Digital),
ment of the Commission’s decision refusing to enter the                    established in Madrid, and Telefónica de Contenidos SAU,
applicant on the list of officials deemed most deserving of                established in Madrid, represented by M. Merola and S. Moreno
promotion to Grade B 2 for the 2001 promotion procedure                    Sánchez, lawyers, application for annulment of the Com-
and also the decision not to promote him — the Court of First              mission decision of 14 August 2002 referring the examination
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,              of the concentration integrating DTS Distribuidora de Tele-
and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a             visión Digital SA (Via Digital) and Sogecable SA to the Spanish
judgment on 18 September 2003, the operative part of which                 competition authorities in accordance with Article 9 of Council
is as follows:                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the
                                                                           control of concentrations between undertakings (Case COMP/
1.    The application is dismissed;                                        M.2845 — Sogecable/Canalsatélite Digital/Vía Digital), the
                                                                           Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A. Lenaerts,
                                                                           President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, judges: Registrar: J. Palacio
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                           González, Principal Administrator, has delivered a judgment
                                                                           on 30 September 2003 in which it:
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                           (1) Joins Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02 for the purposes of the
                                                                                judgment;
                                                                           (2) Dismisses the applications;
                                                                           (3) Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     severally to pay the costs of the Commission, Sogecable, Vía
                                                                                Digital and Telefónica de Contenidos in connection with the
                     of 30 September 2003                                       applicants’ actions;
                                                                           (4) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
in Joined Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02, Cableuropa SA
and others v Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties (1)                                   (1) OJ C 19 of 24.1.2003.
(Competition — Control of concentrations between under-
takings — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision to
refer a concentration to the national authorities — Meaning
                         of distinct market)
                          (2003/C 304/49)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-310/97: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the
In Joined Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02, Cableuropa SA,                                             European Union (1)
established in Madrid (Spain), Región de Murcia de Cable SA,
established in Murcia (Spain), Valencia de Cable SA, established
in Madrid, Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable SA, established              (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
in Alicante (Spain), Mediterránea Norte Sistemas de Cable SA,              Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
established in Castellón (Spain), represented by L. Castresana                                            bility)
Sánchez and G. Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, Aunacable SA, established in                                              (2003/C 304/50)
Madrid, represented by A. Creus Carreras and N. Lacalle
Mangas, lawyers, Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones
de Castilla y León (Retecal) SA, established in Boecilli (Spain),                             (Language of the case: English)
Euskaltel SA, established in Zamudio-Bizkaia (Spain), Telecable
de Avilés SA, established in Avilés (Spain), Telecable de Ovieda
SA, established in Oviedo (Spain), Telecable de Gijón SA,
established in Gijón (Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones                In Case T-310/97, Nederlandse Antillen, represented by
Galicia SA, established in La Coruña (Spain), Tenaria SA,                  P.V.F. Bos and M. Slotboom, lawyers, with an address for
established in Cordovilla (Spain), represented by J. Jiménez               service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union
Laiglesia, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communites                 (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission
(agent: F. Castillo de la Torre), supported by Kingdom of Spain            of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and


title: Case T-374/07: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2012 — Pachtitis v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Rejection of an application seeking to obtain a copy of the questions and answers to the admission tests — Lack of competence of the General Court — Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/22

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2012 — Pachtitis v Commission
   (Case T-374/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Rejection of an application seeking to obtain a copy of the questions and answers to the admission tests - Lack of competence of the General Court - Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2012/C 174/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: initially P. Giatagantzidis and V. Niagkou, then P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavropoulou, then P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 27 June 2007, rejecting an application from the applicant seeking to obtain access to the questions which had been put to him in the context of his participation in the open competition EPSO/AD/77/06, to the answers which he had given to those questions and the sheet of correct answers, and, second, of the implied rejection of the confirmatory application which he had made on 10 July 2007 to EPSO.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Case T-374/07 is referred back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-432/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/41

         Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-432/04)
   (2005/C 6/81)
   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 22 October 2004, by Walter Parlante, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 5 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26 February 2004, by which he challenged the decision refusing to promote him from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that the new promotion procedure does not provide a proper fair examination of officials' individual merits since the examination is made only by comparison with the other officials of the same Directorate-General.
   The applicant also alleges that Article 12 of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes that Article and amounts to discrimination in that certain officials were, in the course of the 2003 promotion procedure, awarded additional priority points on the sole ground that they were proposed for promotion in 2002 without actually being promoted.
   The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-512/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Rusal Armenal v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China — Definitive antidumping duty — Market Economy Treatment — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Cumulative assessment of imports subject to antidumping investigations — Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 384/96 — Undertaking offer — Article 8(3) of Regulation No 384/96)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Rusal Armenal v Council
   (Case T-512/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China - Definitive antidumping duty - Market Economy Treatment - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Cumulative assessment of imports subject to antidumping investigations - Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 384/96 - Undertaking offer - Article 8(3) of Regulation No 384/96))
   (2017/C 078/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rusal Armenal ZAO (Yerevan, Armenia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, lawyers, and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by S. Boelaert and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rusal Armenal ZAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-284/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 15(2) — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 67(3) — Social security — Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment — Award of that benefit — Completion of periods of employment — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment — Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Brussels — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)
      (Case C-284/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU and Article 48 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15(2) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 67(3) - Social security - Unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment - Award of that benefit - Completion of periods of employment - Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment - Taking into account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State))
      (2016/C 211/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour du travail de Brussels

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M

         Defendants: M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse auxiliaire de paiement des allocations de chômage (CAPAC)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment, where that employment was not preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that Member State.

                  2.

                  Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

         (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-549/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — France v Commission (Agriculture — Export refund — Poultry meat — Fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Obligation to state reasons — Possibility for the Commission to confine itself to a standard set of reasoning — Commission’s standard practice in fixing refunds — Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Non-exhaustive nature of the criteria laid down)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — France v Commission
   (Case T-549/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Export refund - Poultry meat - Fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Obligation to state reasons - Possibility for the Commission to confine itself to a standard set of reasoning - Commission’s standard practice in fixing refunds - Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Non-exhaustive nature of the criteria laid down))
   (2016/C 078/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-301/13: Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/11

         Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)
   (Case T-301/13) (1)

   2013/C 298/20
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case F-44/08: Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Tsarnavas v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/28

         Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Tsarnavas v Commission
   (Case F-44/08)
   (2008/C 158/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Glyfada, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's request for compensation of EUR 6 800 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered in consequence of breaches of procedure or wrongful acts in the performance of public duties by the Commission in the promotion years 1998 and 1999, and an order that the Commission pay that sum.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 August 2007 rejecting the applicant's request for compensation of EUR 6 800 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered in consequence of breaches of procedure or wrongful acts in the performance of public duties by the Commission in the promotion years 1998 and 1999;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 14 November 2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 6 800 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered in consequence of repeated breaches of procedure or wrongful acts in the performance of public duties by the Commission in the promotion years 1998 and 1999, in consequence of judgment of 19 March 2003 (Joined Cases T-188/01 and T-189/01);

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-501/09: Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)
   (Case T-501/09) (1)

   2012/C 151/58
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-8/95)

text:
25.3.95            I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/13
    together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May               Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against
    1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as             the Commission of the European Communities
    well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
                                                                                (Case T-10/95 )
    7 910,16 ;
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/25 )
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                                  (Language of the case: French)
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 January 1995
                                                                   by Akli Chehab, residing in Paris ( France ), represented by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Case T-20/94 .                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decision of 22 March 1994 in
                                                                       so far as it restricts to 3 % the additional rate of
Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle                     permanent partial invalidity reflecting the deterioration
against Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the applicant's state of health,
                 the European Communities
                       (Case T-8/95 )                              — order the Commission, to pay the costs.
                        ( 95/C 74/24 )
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
               (Language of the case: German)                      As a result of two accidents, in January 1978 and January
                                                                   1983 , the applicant, who is a former official of the
                                                                   Commission, is entitled to a partial invalidity rate of 10 %
An action against the Council of the European Union and            and an additional invalidity rate of 5 % . Since his state of
Commission of the European Communities was brought                 health had deteriorated, he submitted a request that his case
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 be re-examined . On completion of the procedure set out in
Communities on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle,                   the Staff Regulations, the Commission proposed that he be
Kluse-Ahlen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by          granted a permanent partial invalidity rate of 8 % ; it asked
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten,         for the number of his bank account, which could be credited
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte,               with a sum corresponding to a permanent partial invalidity
Miinster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         rate of 3% , representing the deterioration of his state of
Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .                 health by comparison with the findings of the last Medical
                                                                   Committee which convened on 20 March 1989 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The applicant claims that that constitutes an infringement of
                                                                   Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 9 et seq. of
1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant           the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
    SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 March                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
     1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM
                                                                   Occupational Disease. He also claims that the contested
     81 159,764, together with interest thereon at 8 % from        decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
     19 May 1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the
    proceedings;
                                                                   The applicant states in particular that an opinion given by
                                                                   the Medical Committee plainly affirmed a continuing state
2 . Join the present action to that aleady pending in Case         of 8 % permanent invalidity. That opinion was elucidated in
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                   the additional opinion given by the Medical Committee on
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     26 November 1993 where it was made clear that the
                                                                   discrepancy between the rate of permanent invalidity
                                                                   decided by an expert appointed in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                    medical procedure and that decided by the Medical
                                                                   Committee itself is explained by the fact that the Committee
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        considered that the applicant had a pre-existing
Case T-20/94 .                                                     condition.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the decision in dispute is vitiated
                                                                   by a manifest error of assessment in so far as it restricts to


title: Case C-94/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose — Directive 2002/49/EC)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-94/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose - Directive 2002/49/EC)
   (2006/C 326/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise — Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p.12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into national law Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise as regards the Provinces of Burgenland, Carinthia, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria and Tyrol, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case T-554/11: Action brought on 18 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/28

         Action brought on 18 October 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-554/11)
   2011/C 370/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Commission to refuse to execute the payments due to the applicant and instead to recover the amount already paid in the framework of the implementation of contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (Ref.: C&F/2011/D/001101) and the attached debit note;

               —

               Annul all the relevant subsequent decisions of the defendant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment when deciding that the applicant should reimburse a certain amount instead of being paid the amount due for work executed, approved and validated.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misinterpreted the legal basis and its right to recover the requested amount, thereby infringing Article 79 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (1) by failure to consider the confirmation on the time-sheets of the applicant’s experts and the volume of effort provided by them and validated adequately, even more so since no comments on the completed work were made in tempore non suspecto.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration, good faith and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, as:

                           —

                           It refused to pay amounts due for validated and accepted work;

                           —

                           It failed to inform the applicant in due time on any doubts with regard to its obligation to pay the applicant the amounts verified by the auditor; and

                           —

                           It encouraged the applicant to continue its work for 12 months and to provide services, under the assumption that it would be paid for such work.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons, as well as the applicant’s rights of defence, as it refused the payment of due amounts and, instead, ordered the recovery of a certain amount from the applicant, without providing any analysis or justification of its decision on the respective amount.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the execution of the contested decision constituted a misuse of powers.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)


title: Case C-466/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France)) — Société Roquette Frères v Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects, Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose — Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of production quotas — Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 — Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of the quota system — Account taken of the quantities of sugar in processed products — Determination of the exportable surplus — Determination of average loss)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/6

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France)) — Société Roquette Frères v Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects, Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects
   (Case C-466/06) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Isoglucose - Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of production quotas - Isoglucose produced as an intermediate product - Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 - Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 - Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 - Production levies - Detailed rules for the application of the quota system - Account taken of the quantities of sugar in processed products - Determination of the exportable surplus - Determination of average loss)
   (2008/C 327/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre
   Parties

      Applicant: Société Roquette Frères

      Defendant: Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects, Recette Principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction Générale des Douanes et des Droits Indirects
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre — Validity of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1758/81, Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999, Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000, Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose production quotas — (Non) inclusion of isoglucose used as an intermediate product — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 and Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 — Method of calculating levies due in respect of isoglucose production
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Consideration of the first question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements, Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September 2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements or Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under preferential imports.

               2.

               Consideration of the first subparagraph of Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/94 of 23 February 1994, and Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended, where appropriate, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 of 27 June 2003 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-195/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — SCI Senior Home, in administration v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 5 — Notion of ‘third parties’ rights in rem’ — Public charge against immovable property to ensure payment of real property tax)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — SCI Senior Home, in administration v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG
   (Case C-195/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 5 - Notion of ‘third parties’ rights in rem’ - Public charge against immovable property to ensure payment of real property tax))
   (2017/C 006/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SCI Senior Home, in administration

      Defendants: Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that security created by virtue of a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the real property of a person owing real property taxes is, by operation of law, to be subject to a public charge and that property owner must accept enforcement of the decision recording that tax debt against that property, constitutes a ‘right in rem’ for the purposes of that article.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-232/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against Hans Van Lent

text:
C 227/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
(2) Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with                       tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
     Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on                Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the                 appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
     sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated                 Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
     according to the legal rate in force at the date on which              Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
     that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not                  Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
     according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with                   (Case C-238/01) on the following question:
     respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
     subsequently amended?
                                                                            Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
                                                                            interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.            and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
                                                                            Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
                                                                            No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
                                                                            building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
                                                                            with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
                                                                            acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank                  fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order                       the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar                       case?
                Ministerie against Hans Van Lent
                           (Case C-232/01)
                           (2001/C 227/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001                   Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry an 18 June 2001, for a                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against                                           Sweden
Hans Van Lent on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-247/01)
Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration                                        (2001/C 227/26)
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-                   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in               2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during             represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract              for service in Luxembourg.
of employment and also during his free time, including
weekends and holiday periods?                                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
                                                                                of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
                                                                                the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
                                                                                Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                            and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18                            1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger,                             fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the                            Directive 79/409/EEC,
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
                              of Salzburg                                   2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
                 (Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2001/C 227/25)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                   to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2000 in Case C-434/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/12/EEC — Specific tax levied on beverages with a high alcohol content)

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 102/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2000
                        of 24 February 2000
                                                                           in Case C-295/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
in Case C-434/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                         European Communities (1)
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                           (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Belated nature of the
(Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/12/EEC — Specific tax levied on beverages with a high                                        action — Inadmissibility)
                           alcohol content)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/14)
                          (2000/C 102/13)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(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-434/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic (Agents
K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot) — application for a declar-
ation that, by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 26           In Case C-295/98: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
of Law No 83-25 of 19 January 1983 on the scope and tax                    by D. Del Gaizo and G. Castellani Pastoris) v Commission of
base of the ‘social security’ contribution levied on alcoholic             the European Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) —
beverages, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 Febru-             98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the clearance of the accounts
ary 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to               presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                 for 1994 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), read in conjunction with,              Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1998 L 163,
in particular, Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of                p. 28), in so far as it makes financial adjustments to certain
19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of                  expenditure declared by the Italian Republic — the Court,
excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992                  composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
L 316, p. 21) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presi-
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber,                  dents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puis-
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann,           sochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rap-
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Sag-             porteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
gio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                      R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 January 2000,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the operative part of which is as follows:
24 February 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                           2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
     costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
( 1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 April 1995 in Case T-12/93: Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société Anonyme Vittel and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Trade unions and works councils - Act of direct and individual concern to them - Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure)

text:
24 . 6 . 95           | EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 159/21
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 April 1995                                                          of 27 April 1995
in Case T-96/92 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société               in Case T-12/93 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société
Générale des Grandes Sources and Others v. Commission of                  Anonyme Vittel and Others v. Commission of the European
                 the European Communities ( ] )                                                     Communities (*)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision                     (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration compatible with the common                      declaring a concentration compatible with the common
market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Trade                     market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Trade
unions and works councils — Sufficient interest giving the                unions and works councils — Act of direct and individual
recognized representatives of the employees the right to                  concern to them — Sufficient interest giving the recognized
submit their observations, upon application, in the                       representatives of the employees the right to submit their
administrative procedure — Acts of direct and individual                  observations, upon application, in the administrative
                         concern to them)                                                                procedure)
                            ( 95/C 159/44 )                                                           ( 95/C 159/45 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T- 1 2/9 3 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société
                                                                          Anonyme Vittel, based in Vittel, France, Comité
                                                                          d'Etablissement de Pierval, based in Vittel, and Fédération
In Case T-96/92 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société               Générale Agroalimentaire , based in Paris, all represented by
Générale des Grandes Sources, based in Paris, Comité                      François Nativi, Hélène Rousseau and Françoise
d'Etablissement de la Source Perrier, Syndicat CGT                        Bienayme-Galaz, of the Paris Bar, assisted by Aloyse May, of
( Confédération Générale du Travail ) de la Source Perrier,               the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
and Comité de Groupe Perrier, all based in Vergèze, France,               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
represented by Jean Méloux, of the Montpellier Bar, during                Grand-Rue, supported by Comité Central d'Entreprise de la
the written procedure and by Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the                  Société Générale des Grandes Sources, based in Paris,
Paris Bar, during the oral procedure , with an address for                Comité d'Etablissement de la Source Perrier, Syndicat CGT
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Thomas, 77                   ( Confédération Générale du Travail ) de la Source Perrier,
Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte v . Commission of                     and Comité de Groupe Perrier, all based in Vergèze, France,
the European Communities (Agents: F. E. Gonzalez Diaz                     represented by Jean Méloux during the written procedure
and G. de Bergues ) — application for annulment of                        and by Alain Ottan during the oral procedure, both of the
Commission Decision 92/553/EEC of 22 July 1992 ( 2 )                      Montpellier Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
relating to a proceeding under Council Regulation ( EEC )                 at the Chambers of Guy Thomas , 77 Boulevard
No 4064/89 ( Case No IV/M.190 — Nestlé/Perner ( 3 )) —                    Grande-Duchesse Charlotte v. Commission of the European
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended                    Communities ( Agents: F. E. Gonzalez Diaz and G. de
composition ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P.               Bergues ) — application for annulment of Commission
M.      Barrington,     A.     Saggio,      H. Kirschner   and   A.       Decision 92/553/EEC of 22 July 1992 ( 2 ) relating to a
Kalogeropoulos , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                 proceeding under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89
judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:                                  ( Case No IV/M.190 — Nestlé/Perrier ( 3 )) — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
                                                                          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
                                                                          A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, H.
1 , dismisses the application;                                            Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in
                                                                          which it :
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the             1 , dismisses the application;
      costs relating to the proceedings for interim
      measures .                                                          2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the
                                                                                costs relating to the proceedings for interim
                                                                                measures;
(') OJ No C 322 , 9 . 12 . 1992 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 356 , 5 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                               3,    orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
( 3 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (!) OJ No C 70, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 356 , 5 . 12 . 1992 , p . 7.
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 2 May 2002 in Case C-292/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)

text:
15.6.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             hazardous waste and under Article 14 of European Parliament
                                                                                and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                                packaging and packaging waste;
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                              2 May 2002
                                                                             (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
in Case C-292/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/
EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management
                                 plans)
                           (2002/C 144/03)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                     23 April 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-443/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Merck, Sharp & Dohme
                                                                                GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH (1)
                                                                             (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) —
In Case C-292/99, Commission of the European Communities                     Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark
(Agents: H. van Lier and L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents:                — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation —
K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas): Application for a declaration                       Repackaging of the trade-marked product)
that, by failing to draw up management plans either for the
whole of its territory or for all waste, and by failing to include
a chapter relating to packaging waste in all of the waste plans
                                                                                (2002/C 144/04)
which it has adopted, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991                                        (Language of the case: German)
(OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), under Article 6(1) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
1991 L 377, p. 20) and under Article 14 of European                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                                        in the European Court Reports)
1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365,
p. 10), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General,: H. A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                In Case C-443/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
trator; Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 May 2002, in                    EC by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
which it:                                                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH and Paranova Pharmazeutika
                                                                             Handels GmbH, on the interpretation of Article 7(2) of First
1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up waste management plans            Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
      for the whole of its territory, by failing to draw up, for certain     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      regions or certain departments, such plans for waste containing        marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended by the Agreement on
      polychlorinated biphenyls, medical waste and special domestic          the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1,
      waste, and by failing to include a specific chapter relating to        p. 3), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      packaging waste in all of the waste management plans which it          President, P. Jann (President of Chamber), C. Gulmann (Rappor-
      has adopted, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              teur), D. A. O. Edward, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris,
      obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/            J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
      EEC on 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                    F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head
      Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, under Article 6(1)              of Division, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 23 April
      of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on                 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 197/ 14    I EN I             Official Journal of the European Communitiesv                            27. 6. 97
                                                          III
                                                       (Notices)
                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                    (97/C 197/08 )
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
           European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           No C 197 A on 27 June 1997 the following open competition :
           French edition :
           EUR/A/ 126 (Lawyers trained in Luxembourgish law — Administrators)
           To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           Closing date for applications : 15 September 1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Case T-175/97: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Posting in a third country — Adjustment of weightings — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment)

text:
C 95/8                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.3.2001
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 26 October 2000
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
in Case T-41/96: Bayer AG v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)                                   in Case T-175/97: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of ‘agreement
between undertakings’ — Proof of the existence of an                         (Officials — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Posting
      agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)                         in a third country — Adjustment of weightings — Retro-
                                                                                active effect — Recovery of overpayment)
                           (2001/C 95/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/14)
                    (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-41/96: Bayer AG,established in Leverkusen (Ger-                                        (Language of the case: French)
many), represented by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported by European Federation
                                                                             In Case T-175/97: Bernard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis
of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, established in Gene-
                                                                             Bessette, Pier Luigi Bruzzone, Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico
va (Switzerland), represented initially by C. Walker, Solicitor,
                                                                             Di Pietro, Barry John Green, Remmelt Haange, Ronald Hems-
and subsequently by T. Woodgate, Solicitor, with an address
                                                                             worth, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
                                                                             Mondino, Alfredo Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini,
398 Route d’Esch, against Commission of the European
                                                                             Mike Michael Wykes, temporary agents of the Commission of
Communities (Agents: W. Wils and K. Wiedner) supported by
                                                                             the European Communities, all residing in Naka (Japan), and
Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in
                                                                             Michel Dupon, temporary agent of the Commission of the
Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
                                                                             European Communities, residing in Tokyo (Japan), represented
W.A. Rehmann and U. Zinsmeister, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                             by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Becker and Cahen, 3 Rue
and Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume — application for the
                                                                             des Foyers, against the Commission of the European Com-
annulment of Commission Decision 96/478/EC of 10 January
                                                                             munities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart),
1996 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                             supported by Council of the European Union (Agents:
Treaty (Case IV/34.279/F3 — Adalat) (OJ 1996 L 201, p. 1)
                                                                             P.M. Cossu and T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                             all the salary slips of the applicants from May 1996 and for an
Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-
                                                                             order requiring the Commission to repay to the applicants the
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                             amounts withheld from their salary with effect from June
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                             1996 by way of recovery of amounts overpaid and to pay
ment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                             them the amounts by which their salaries had been reduced as
                                                                             from May 1996 - the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 96/478/EC of 10 January                     composed of J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi and A. Potocki,
      1996 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC               Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
      Treaty (Case IV/34.279/F3 — Adalat);                                   judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
      costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred by the       1.    dismisses the application;
      latter in the proceedings for interim relief;
3.    Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’           2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
      Associations and the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Impor-
      teure eV to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.98.
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.96.


title: Case T-357/07: Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM — Editorial Planeta (FOCUS Radio)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/65

         Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM — Editorial Planeta (FOCUS Radio)
   (Case T-357/07)
   (2007/C 269/118)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. C. Müller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Editorial Planeta, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul No 1, No 3 and No 4 of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation for the Internal Market, dated 30 July 2007, in the opposition proceeding No B 516 742 (Community trade mark application No 2 340 289);

               —

               alter the contested decision mentioned in No 1 in order to register the contested Community trade mark application for the following goods and services:

                           —

                           Class 9 — Computers and data-processing apparatus; memories for data processing equipment; machine-readable data carriers of all types containing information, and sound and image recording carriers, in particular floppy discs, CD-ROMs, DVDs, chip cards, magnetic cards, video cassettes, compact discs and video discs; collections of information recorded on data carriers;

                           —

                           Class 16 — Printed matter, printed materials, periodicals, newspapers, books, stickers, calendars, office requisites (except furniture), instructional and teaching material (except apparatus), included in class 16;

                           —

                           Class 41 — Entertainment among other radio entertainment; conducting entertainment events, live events, cultural and sporting events, included in class 41.

               —

               order the opponent to bear costs for the whole opposition proceeding including this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FOCUS Radio’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — application No 2 340 289

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Editorial Planeta, SA

      Mark or sign cited: The national word and figurative marks ‘FOCUS MILENIUM’, ‘PLANETA FOCUS’ and ‘PLANETA FOCUS 99’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and partial rejection of the Community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no relevant similarity between the conflicting trade marks and thus no likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-478/13: Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/10

         Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-478/13)
   2013/C 336/22
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in view of (a) its failure to impose, within the national legal system, an obligation to notify the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which GMO crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, (1) (b) its failure to establish a register for recording the locations at which such GMO crops are being grown, and (c) its failure to provide information to the public on the locations at which such GMO crops are being grown, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2001/18/EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2001/18/EC had to be transposed expired on 17 October 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and T-225/99, Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legality of reduction and adjustment coefficients — Action for damages)

text:
C 331/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              L 215, p. 62) and, secondly, for damages together with interest
                                                                         thereon in compensation for the loss caused to the applicants
                                                                         by the adoption of that Regulation — in Case T-225/1999,
                         of 12 July 2001                                 first, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1586/99
                                                                         of 20 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2632/98 laying
in Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98                   down for 1999 the single adjustment coefficient to be applied
and T-225/99, Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe                  to each traditional operator’s provisional reference quantity
Ltd & Co. v Commission of the European Communities (1)                   under the tariff quotas for traditional ACP bananas (OJ 1999
                                                                         L 188, p. 19) and, secondly, for damages together with interest
                                                                         thereon in compensation for the loss caused to the applicants
(Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Action                   by the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1586/1999, — the
for annulment — Admissibility — Legality of reduction and                Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
        adjustment coefficients — Action for damages)                    President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Pala-
                                                                         cio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                        (2001/C 331/28)                                  judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)                       1.     Dismisses the claims for annulment as inadmissible.
                                                                         2.     Dismisses the claims for damages as unfounded.
                                                                         3.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly to pay
In Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and
                                                                                the costs of the Commission.
T-225/99 Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa (Italy), and
Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established in Hamburg
                                                                         4.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(Germany), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and B. Gar-
cı́a Porras, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  (1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.95, C 9 of 11.1.97, C 318 of 18.10.97, C 160
X. Lewis, K. Fitch, H. van Vliet, T. van Rijn, C. Van der                    of 5.6.1999 and C 6 of 8.1.2000.
Hauwaert, E. de March, J. Flett and J. Handoll), supported by
the French Republic, (Agents: C. Vasak, C. de Salins, K. Rispal-
Bellanger and F. Pascal), in Cases T-198/95, T-171/96,
T-230/97, and the Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de
Lapuerta), in Cases T-230/97 and T-225/99 — application
for — in Case T-198/95, first, annulment of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1869/95 of 26 July 1995, amending                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EC) No 2947/94 fixing the single reduction
coefficient for the determination of the quantity of bananas to
be allocated to each operator in categories A and B within the                                       of 12 July 2001
tariff quota for 1995 (OJ 1995 L 179, p. 38), and, secondly,
for damages together with interest thereon, in compensation              in Joined Cases T-12/99 and T-63/99 UK Coal plc v
for the loss caused to the applicants by the adoption of                         Commission of the European Communities (1)
Regulation (EC) No 1869/95, — in Case T-171/96, first,
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1561/96
                                                                         (ECSC Treaty — Decision No 3632/93/ECSC — Operating
of 30 July 1996 fixing the reduction coefficients for the
                                                                         aid and aid for the reduction of activity — Authorisation ex
determination of the quantity of bananas to be allocated to
                                                                         post facto of aid already paid — Improvement of the viability
each operator in categories A and B within the tariff quota for
                                                                         of recipient undertakings — Degression of aid — Bonus
1996 (OJ 1996 L 193, p. 15), and, secondly, for damages
                                                                         paid to underground mineworkers (Bergmannsprämie) —
together with interest thereon in compensation for the loss
                                                                         Amendment of a modernisation, rationalisation and restruc-
caused to the applicants by the adoption of that Regulation —
                                                                         turing plan — Taking account of a concentration between
in Case T-230/97, first, annulment of Commission Regulation
                                                                                undertakings — Statement of reasons)
(EC) No 1155/97 of 25 June 1997 fixing the reduction
coefficients for the determination of the quantity of bananas
to be allocated to each operator in categories A and B within                                       (2001/C 331/29)
the tariff quota for 1997 (OJ 1997 L 168, p. 67) and, secondly,
for damages together with interest thereon in compensation                                    (Language of the case: English)
for the loss caused to the applicants by the adoption of
that Regulation — in Case T-174/98, first, annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1721/98 of 31 July 1998
fixing the reduction coefficients for the determination of the           In Joined Cases T-12/99 and T-63/99 UK Coal plc, formerly
quantity of bananas to be allocated to each operator in                  RJB Mining plc, whose registered office is in Harworth (United
categories A and B within the tariff quota for 1998 (OJ 1998             Kingdom), represented by M. Brealey, Barrister, and