title: Case T-371/02: Action brought on 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé against the European Parliament

text:
C 44/36               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     22.2.2003
The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is              —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
sought is the word mark ‘NIKE F.I.T.’ — application                             vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
No 277731 in respect of goods in Class 25 ‘clothing, footwear                   incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
and headgear’.                                                                  and appeal proceedings.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-
                                                                          prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the
                                                                          decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook                         and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
                    Internal Market (OHIM)
                                                                          The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is
                        (Case T-366/02)                                   sought is the mixed mark ‘TRIAX NIKE SERIES’ with graphic
                                                                          — application No 252411 in respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                          ‘clothing, footwear and headgear’.
                         (2003/C 44/68)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                           against the European Parliament
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-                                       (Case T-371/02)
resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
                                                                                (2003/C 44/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—    declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
     the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)
     and/or Article 42(2) and (3) and/or Article 8(1)(b) thereof,
     the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
     30 September 2002 in case No R 880/1999-1, inasmuch                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
     as it declares that the opponent has failed to prove                 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé, resident at Luxembourg,
     genuine use in the Community of the Spanish trade mark               represented by Alain Loraing, lawyer, with an address for
     No 88222 to distinguish ready-to-wear and other items                service in Luxembourg.
     of clothing in Class 25 during the five years preceding
     the publication of the application for a Community trade
     mark;                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul that decision in its entirety;                                 —     rule that the Parliament wrongly has not passed on to
                                                                                him the deductions from Mrs Boez’s salary which fell due
                                                                                up until 11 November 1998;
—    agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
     assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
     to registration of Community trade mark No 252411 is                 —     order payment to him of the deductions made in respect
     appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should                      of the months from March 1998 to November 1998
     declare that Community trade mark No 252411 is                             inclusive;
     refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
     First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             for the recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) in the
                                                                            field of External Relations and Management of Aid to Third
                                                                            Countries, selecting ‘External Relations’, challenges the decision
The applicant challenges the decision of the appointing                     of the Commission, the examining body, to assess his test (e)
authority not to grant his request that the judgment of                     — written test — at one point below that necessary (19/40)
the Tribunal de Paix de Luxembourg (Magistrates’ Court,                     for admission to the oral test.
Luxembourg) of 26 November 1998 be correctly implemented
and that, consequently, the termination of attachment which
was ordered, with effect from 11 November 1998, in respect
of sums deducted by way of attachment from the salary of an                 In support of his claims the applicant alleges:
official of the defendant institution take effect on that date and
not in March 1998.                                                          —     Misuse of powers, insufficient statement of reasons and
                                                                                breach of the rights of the defence as regards the refusal
                                                                                to give him information as to the marking criteria let
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                   alone the marking procedure and the marks of the
                                                                                individual examiners.
—     the principle under which the institutions are bound by a
      duty to cooperate in good faith with national institutions;
                                                                            —     Breach of Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, insufficient
—     that the attachment procedure is entirely legal as regards                  statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the
      Community law.                                                              defence as regards the refusal to provide information as
                                                                                to the linguistic knowledge of the third examiner.
                                                                            —     Breach of the principle of equal treatment in the test and
                                                                                of the principle of sound administration. In that respect
                                                                                it is stated that the material distributed to the candidates
                                                                                in Italian was not prepared with sufficient care. It should
Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro                                  also be noted that there was inconsistency in the grounds
Cavallaro against the Commission of the European Com-                             relating to the interpretation of the ‘instructions to
                             munities                                             candidates’.
                         (Case T-375/02)                                    —     Clear error of fact in the marking of the first answer in
                                                                                written test (e) of the competition.
                         (2003/C 44/70)
                                                                            —     Misrepresentation of the truth, illogicality and contradic-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               tory grounds as regards the marking of the second answer
                                                                                in written test (e) of the competition.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro
Cavallaro, represented by C. Forte, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Action brought on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’ against the
—     annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of                               Commission of the European Communities
      11 September 2002 to give him insufficient marks
      for written test (e) of the Open Competition for the
      recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) COM/A/                                            (Case T-376/02)
      6/01 and, in consequence, not to admit him to the oral
      tests in that competition;
                                                                                (2003/C 44/71)
—     annul the subsequent stages of that competition, in so far
      as is necessary to restore the applicant’s rights;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’, represent-
The applicant in this case, who had applied to take Open                    ed by Jean Van Rossum, Lawyer, with an address for service in
Competition COM/A/6/01 for the constitution of a reserve list               Luxembourg.


title: Case T-559/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — BytyOKD v Commission

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/17

         Action brought on 21 October 2011 — BytyOKD v Commission
   (Case T-559/11)
   2012/C 13/36
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Sdružení nájemníků BytyOKD.cz (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pelikán, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4927 final of 13 July 2011, State aid No SA.25076 (2011/NN) — Czech Republic: Privatisation of OKD a.s. to Karbon Invest a.s.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, arguing that the Commission infringed Article 108(3) TFEU by not initiating the formal procedure under Article 108(2) even though in the preliminary examination it had, in the applicant’s opinion, encountered serious difficulties in assessing the compatibility with the common market of the measure of the Czech Republic under investigation. The defendant thereby deprived the applicant of the procedural rights which it would have been guaranteed in the formal procedure by Article 108(2) TFEU.


title: Case T-432/05: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — EMC Development v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European cement market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Harmonised standard for cement — Binding nature — Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — EMC Development v Commission
   (Case T-432/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European cement market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Harmonised standard for cement - Binding nature - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements)
   2010/C 179/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EMC Development AB (Luleå, Sweden) (represented by: M. Elvinger and W. -N. Schelp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially É. Gippini Fournier and B. Doherty, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/205249 of 28 September 2005 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against European Portland cement producers, the European Cement Association (Cembureau) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in relation to the European cement market.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EMC Development AB to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Removal from the register of Case C-263/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/45)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 2 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-263/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 7.8.04.


title: Case C-389/06: Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-389/06)
   (2006/C 261/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1), or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs

         Plea in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2003/9/EC expired on 6 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p.18


title: Case C-588/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Polish Republic) lodged on 14 December 2010 — Minister Finansów v Kraft Foods Polska S.A.

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Polish Republic) lodged on 14 December 2010 — Minister Finansów v Kraft Foods Polska S.A.
   (Case C-588/10)
   2011/C 89/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Kraft Foods Polska SA

      Question referred

   In view of the fact that Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) provides that where the price is reduced after the supply takes place, the taxable amount is to be reduced accordingly under conditions which are to be determined by the Member States, does the concept of these conditions cover a condition such as that provided for in Article 29(4a) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on turnover tax) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended), which makes the right to reduce the taxable amount in relation to the amount set out in an invoice contingent on holding, before the expiry of the time limit for submitting a tax declaration for the accounting period in which the purchaser of the product or service received a correcting invoice, acknowledgement of receipt of the correcting invoice by the purchaser of the product or service in respect of which the invoice was issued, and does it infringe the principle of VAT neutrality and proportionality?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-135/03: Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/25
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market                            Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Communities
                                                                                (Case T-137/03)
                           (Case T-135/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/46)
                           (2003/C 158/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers, a company established in Brussels, represented by
Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     set aside the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       medical consultant to the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit
                                                                                of DG Admin B8;
—      annul Commission Decision REM 03/02;
                                                                            —     set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003
                                                                                dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            —     set aside the appointment of another candidate to the
                                                                                post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia
                                                                                rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the vacant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   post;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation
The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in                         for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs                   applicant’s career;
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
92 (1), for remission of customs duties in accordance with
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (2). That appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
cation was forwarded by the French authorities to the defend-
ant who, by its contested decision, refused remission.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law
and arguments which are similar to those relied on by the
same applicant in Case T-134/03.                                            The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working
                                                                            in the Commission’s medical service. In response to a notice
                                                                            of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical
                                                                            consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                 another candidate was appointed to that post.
     establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
     19.10.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
     imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea             The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has
     ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,          breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regu-
     exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-             lations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal
     lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,           treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal
     31.12.1994, p. 20).                                                    opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In
                                                                            support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the
                                                                            appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment
                                                                            procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.


title: Case T-309/08: Action brought on 4 August 2008 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW Holdings (G Stor)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/16

         Action brought on 4 August 2008 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW Holdings (G Stor)
   (Case T-309/08)
   (2008/C 260/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: G-Star Raw Denim Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESGW Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2008 in case R 1232/2007-1;

               —

               Reject the registration of the Community trade mark application No 4 195 368; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘G Stor’ for goods in class 9

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Benelux trade mark registration No 545 551 of the word mark ‘G-STAR’ for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 445 401 of the word/figurative mark ‘G-STAR’ for goods in class 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 444 262 of the word mark ‘G-Star’ for goods in class 9 and 25; earlier well-known trade mark ‘G-Star’ protected in various countries for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 3 444 171 of the mark ‘G-STAR RAW DENIM’ for goods in class 9 and 35; Dutch trade name G-Star International B.V.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal applied the wrong criteria when assessing the required similarity between the trade marks concerned and the required detriment to the earlier trade marks. In addition, the Board of Appeal also made an incorrect assessment of the facts with regard to the abovementioned assessments.


title: Case T-119/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Action brought on 5 March 2012 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council
   (Case T-119/12)
   2012/C 165/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Union syndicale fédérale des services publics européens et internationaux (USFSPEI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Bernd Loescher (Rhode Saint Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant Loescher, as well as other officials and servants of the European Union, arrears in remuneration and pensions to which they are entitled from 1 July 2011 onwards, together with default interest from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               —

               order the Council to pay the USF and the applicant one Euro by way of symbolic compensation for the non-material damage suffered through the wrongful act in the form of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas in law alleging:

               —

               first, breach of Articles 64, 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, infringement of the principles of sincere cooperation and coherence flowing from Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of legitimate expectations and the obligation stemming from the adage patere legem quam ipse fecisti and

               —

               second, breach of the Council’s Decision of 23 June 1981 setting up the tripartite concertation by failing to ensure that the points of view of the staff and the administrative authorities were in fact made known to the Member States’ representatives before the adoption of the contested decision.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel, Lyon (Seventh Chamber) by judgment of that court of 16 September 1998 in the case of Ministère Public against Yannick Geffroy - Civilly liable: SNC Casino France (Case C-366/98)

text:
C 378/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
(Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Fourth Senate) of 5 October            Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Commission of
1998, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 1998,               the European Communities against French Republic
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brinkmann
Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the                                       (Case C-373/98)
following questions:                                                                        (98/C 378/19)
Does paragraph 4.1.2 of the Tabaksteuergesetz (Law on
Tobacco Tax) in the version current as at 21.12.1992
(Bundesgesetzblatt 1992, Part I, p. 2150) constitute an            An action against the French Republic was brought before
incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) of Council                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Directive 92/80/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                      16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other               Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
than cigarettes (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 10)?;                    Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
                                                                   civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                   Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
If the Court of Justice answers that question in the               office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
affirmative:                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Does Article 3(1) of that directive confer upon a person
chargeable to tobacco tax a direct right to be taxed in            The applicant claims that the Court should:
accordance with the directive, with the result that the
national courts are to set aside the minimum rate of tax
which is applied to cigars/cigarillos in Germany contrary
to the wording of the directive?'                                  1. declare that by failing to take all the necessary
                                                                        measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of
                                                                        27 April 1988 in Case 252/85 (1), the French Republic
                                                                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171(1)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel,
                                                                   2. order the French Republic to pay a periodic penalty
Lyon (Seventh Chamber) by judgment of that court of
                                                                        payment of ECU 105 500 per day in respect of each
16 September 1998 in the case of MinisteÁre Public against
                                                                        day as from the notification of the abovementioned
    Yannick Geffroy Ð Civilly liable: SNC Casino France
                                                                        judgment until it complies with the obligations
                       (Case C-366/98)                                  referred to at paragraph 1;
                         (98/C 378/18)
                                                                   3. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Lyon (Seventh Chamber), of
16 September 1998, received at the Court Registry on               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
14 October 1998, for the preliminary ruling in the case of
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) v. Yannick
Geffroy Ð Civilly responsible: SNC Casino France, on the
                                                                   Ð The Commission finds that in so far as it is aware:
following question:
Do the combined provisions of Article 30 of the EC                      Ð the list of protected bird species the taking or
Treaty and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                    keeping of whose eggs or the destruction or
18 December 1978. On the approximation of the laws of                       removal of whose nests must be prohibited still
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                   does not include all those mentioned in Council
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                      Directive 79/409/EEC (2);
consumer (1) preclude the application of national
legislation such as that contained in Decree No 84-1147
of 7 December 1984, applying the Law of 1 August 1905                   Ð the bird species the keeping of which is prohibited
which was applicable at the time, as amended by Article                     under French legislation have still not been defined
L. 213-1 et seq. of the Code de la Consommation                             in a manner which corresponds exactly with the
(Consumer Code)?                                                            requirements of the directive.
(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   Ð In fixing the amount of the periodic penalty payment
                                                                        which it proposes to impose, the Commission has


title: Case T-263/04: Action brought on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/22

         Action brought on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-263/04)
   (2004/C 251/41)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A., established in Clichy (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2004 (Case R 468/2003-4), (1) in so far as it decided that Community trade mark application No 1 738 566 should be refused on the grounds laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94, since BIC has shown that the conditions for the application of that article were not satisfied in the present case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter.

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Class 34 (smoker's articles, lighters) — application No 1 738 566.

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal to register by the examiner.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant has shown that the shape of the lighter in respect of which the application for registration as a Community trade mark was made is widely recognised by consumers as belonging to it.
               The applicant has established that the shape of the BIC lighter had acquired a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

      (1)  Probably R 469/2003-4.


title: Case T-464/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera) (Community trade mark — Application for the figurative Community trade mark Superleggera — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)
   (Case T-464/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the figurative Community trade mark Superleggera - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 179/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zeta Europe BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Sempio and O. Montalto, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 (Case R 666/2008-1), concerning an application for the registration of the figurative sign Superleggera as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zeta Europe BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313 of 6.12.2008


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 1995 in Case T-535/93: F. v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Recruitment - Refusal of employment on account of physical unfitness - Right to a fair hearing - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
No C 101 /6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 4 . 95
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      (Fourth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 21 February 1995                                                of 23 February 1995
in Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of              in Case T-535/93 : F. v. Council of the European
                the European Communities (*)                                                    Union i 1 )
(Officials — Promotion — Consultation of staffreports —             (Officials — Recruitment — Refusal of employment on
Complaint — Failure to give a reasoned reply — Action for           account ofphysical unfitness — Right to a fair hearing —
annulment — Admissibility — Compensation for                                        Manifest error of assessment)
                             damage)                                                         ( 95/C 101 /17
                         ( 95/C 101/16 )
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                               published in thé European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-535/93 : F, residing at Esbjerg ( Denmark ),
                                                                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
In Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
                                                                    Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities, represented by              Union (Agent: O. Petersen) — application for the annulment
Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       of the decision of the Council of 6 November 1992 not to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue               recruit the applicant on account of a lack of physical fitness
des Bains, v. Commission of the European Communities                to perform typing duties, adopted in consequence of the
(Agent: T. F. Cusack) — application for the annulment of            medical officer's opinion, confirmed by the medical
various decisions of the Commission appointing and
                                                                    committee, declaring the applicant physically unfit, and for
promoting officials and for compensation for the damage
                                                                    the annulment, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision
allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the failure       rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First
to give a reasoned reply to his two complaints and of his not
                                                                    Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
having been appointed or promoted — the Court of First              President, and A. Saggio and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J.
Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,               Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,
                                                                    23 February 1995 , in which it:
B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 February 1 995 , in which it:                        1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                    2 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                        those of the applicant and half of the costs of the
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it           intervener;
    seeks, first, the annulment of the decisions of the
    Commission making promotions to grade A3 for 1991               3 , orders the intervener to bear half of its own costs.
    and 1992 and making an appointment to the post of
                                                                    (M OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
    head of unit which was the subject of Vacancy Notice
    COM/22/92, and secondly, the award of damages for
    the unlawful acts allegedly committed in the course of
    those procedures;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 March 1995
                                                                    in Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA and Others v. Commission
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                 of the European Communities (*)
    unfounded;                                                      (Fisheries — Community financial assistance for the
                                                                    construction of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 4028/86 — Admissibility — Confirmatory decision —
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                          Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/18 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA, whose registered office is in
                                                                    Concarneau ( France), Pêche et Froid SA, whose registered


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-574/12: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — PAN Europe and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 — Maximum residue levels for pesticides — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — No further interest in bringing an action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — PAN Europe and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v Commission
   (Case T-574/12) (1)

   ((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 - Maximum residue levels for pesticides - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - No further interest in bringing an action - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 320/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Martens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, B. Burggraaf, P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, subsequently, B. Burggraaf, G. von Rintelen and P. Oliver, and, lastly, G. von Rintelen, H. Kranenborg and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of 16 October 2012 whereby the Commission dismissed as unfounded the applicants’ requests for internal review of Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case C-291/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Value for customs purposes — Determination of the Customs value — Transaction value — Price actually paid — Doubts based on the veracity of the declared price — Declared price lower than the price paid in respect of other transactions relating to similar goods)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-291/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Value for customs purposes - Determination of the Customs value - Transaction value - Price actually paid - Doubts based on the veracity of the declared price - Declared price lower than the price paid in respect of other transactions relating to similar goods))
   (2016/C 305/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EURO 2004. Hungary Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the customs value of imported goods is determined on the basis of the transaction value of similar goods, the method in Article 30 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, where the declared transaction value is considered to be unreasonably low in comparison with the statistical average of the purchase prices verified in the context of the importation of similar goods and despite the fact that the customs authority does not refute or call into question the authenticity of the invoice or the bank transfer certificate produced in order to establish the price actually paid for the imported goods, without the importer having submitted, in response to a request to that effect from the customs authority, additional evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of the declared transaction value of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


6.9.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/43
        Removal from the register of Case T-52/98 (1)                    European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-292/99: Bouw- en Handelsonderneming J. Peeters
                                                                         B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
                        (2003/C 213/83)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-52/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 151 of 16.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/86)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
        Removal from the register of Case T-53/98 (1)                    (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                        (2003/C 213/84)                                  of Case T-295/99: Diesel Oil Company B.V. v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-53/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-303/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 166 of 30.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/87)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
        Removal from the register of Case T-292/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 213/85)                                  European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-303/99: Hoogendijk ATW B.V. v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-377/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-377/08)
   (2008/C 285/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate
   Question referred
   Is it permissible under Article 17(3)(a) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, in cases involving the supply of telecommunications services between taxable persons resident in different Member States of the Community and where the recipient is liable to value added tax, for the supplier to deduct the tax payable on the acquisition or importation of goods connected with such transactions which that supplier would be entitled to deduct if he provided the same services within his own country?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-345/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Modas Cristal v EUIPO — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark KRISTAL — Earlier national word and figurative marks MODAS CRISTAL and home CRISTAL — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Modas Cristal v EUIPO — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)
   (Case T-345/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KRISTAL - Earlier national word and figurative marks MODAS CRISTAL and home CRISTAL - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 326/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Modas Cristal, SL (Santa Lucía, Spain) (represented by: E Manresa Medina, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi (Denizli, Turkey)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 341/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Modas Cristal and Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Modas Cristal, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


Avis juridique important

|

E1995J0427(03)

Removal from the Register of Case E-5/94

Official Journal C 106 , 27/04/1995 P. 0006 - 0006

Removal from the Register of Case E-5/94 (1) (95/C 106/07)By order of 27 February 1995 the Acting President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-5/94 (request for an advisory opinion from Marknadsdomstolen: Konsumentombudsmannen against TV-Shop i Sverige AB).(1) OJ No C 347, 8. 12. 1994.


title: Case C-34/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/8

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

   (Case C-34/15 P)
   (2015/C 429/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona
   By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.


title: Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-285/97)

text:
C 7/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10. 1. 98
Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard                Ð order the Commission in any event to pay the costs
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.
                       (Case T-284/97)
                          (98/C 7/66)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   The applicant, a transport company based in Finland,
An action against the Commission of the European                   seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision that
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  may be contained in a letter of 10 October 1997, in so far
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                 as, by that letter, the Commission took a formal position
1997 by Thierry Bigard, residing at Bridel (Luxembourg),           in response to a formal request to the Commission to
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and                 adopt a decision pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire             concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.                                   Regulation), in relation to a concentration or series of
                                                                   concentrations in 1995 between two Finnish banking
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        groups namely Union Bank of Finland (UBF) and
                                                                   Kansallis-Osake-Pankki (KOP), creating a new merged
Ð annul the decisions expressly rejecting his request for          banking entity under the name of Merita Oy. The
    reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in                  concentration was not notified to the Commission in
    respect of household grants,                                   accordance with the procedure laid down in the
                                                                   abovementioned Regulation.
Ð order the defendant to reimburse to him all sums
    wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the            The contested decision is essentially based on the
    rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each                  considerations that the concentration should not have a
    deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,            Community dimension and that, in any case, the two-
                                                                   thirds rule laid down in the first subparagraph of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Article 1 (2) of the Merger Regulation should be
                                                                   applicable. Moreover, the period of two years which
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                elapsed between the announcement of the merger and the
                                                                   submission of the complaint constituted unreasonable
The pleas in law and arguments advanced by the applicant           delay.
in support of his claims are the same as those in Case
T-181/97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice (1).
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
(1) OJ C 252, 16. 8. 1997, p. 35.                                  contested decision:
                                                                   Ð infringes essential procedural requirements, in so far
                                                                       as, on one hand, the letter of 10 October 1997 fails to
                                                                       indicate whether the act has been adopted by the
                                                                       college of Commissioners as such or by the Director
Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike                     who signed it and, on the other hand, before formally
Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European                     rejecting the complaint, the Commission has neither
                         Communities                                   indicated its provisional views nor assured appropriate
                       (Case T-285/97)                                 access to the file,
                          (98/C 7/67)
                                                                   Ð has infringed the Treaty and rules relating to its
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       application, in so far as the Commission erred in law
                                                                       in stating that in the absence of a complaints
An action against the Commission of the European                       procedure it can take no decision. According to the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      applicant, the Commission has jurisdiction to reject a
Instance of the European Communities on 3 November                     complaint that an unnotified concentration has a
1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy, represented by                      Community dimension, just as, in the field of State
Nicholas Forwood QC and Professor Zacharias                            aid, it has the power to adopt a decision rejecting a
Sundström, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                State aid complaint on the ground that the measures
the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, L-2010                             complained of do not constitute State aid.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        As to the substance of the applicant's contention with
                                                                   regard to Article 8 (3) of the Merger Regulation, it is
Ð annul the letter of 10 October 1997, in so far as it             submitted that the agreed bid announced in February
    contains or communicates any decision or act of the            1995 constituted one or more concentrations with a
    Commission in response to the applicant's request              Community dimension, both UBF and KOP having
    pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                      worldwide and EC turnover in excess of the limits set by
 ---pagebreak--- 10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/25
the Merger Regulation. As regards, specifically, the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
geographical allocation of turnover, the applicant states
that a substantial part of the bank's loan portfolios
comprised loans made to Finnish borrowers that were                The applicant, who has also brought in Cases T-235/95 (1)
denominated in foreign currencies and were payable as to           and T-262/97 (2), challenges the inaction of the
interest and capital outside Finland.                              Commission in relation to a complaint, concerning the
                                                                   alleged anti-competitive practices on the part of the
                                                                   General Medical Council (GMC), a statutory body which
                                                                   regulates the medical profession in the territory of the
In relation to the calculation of aggregate turnover for the       United Kingdom. On August 1993 the applicant, a
undertakings concerned for the purposes of the two-thirds          community medical specialist in rheumatology, submitted
rule, the applicant submits that the branches or                   to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Council
subsidiaries of UBF and KOP in London, Luxembourg and              Regulation No 17 an application for a finding that the
Zurich should be regarded as separate undertakings so              GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
that, unless they also derived two-thirds of their turnover        According to the applicant's complaint, the GMC:
from Finland, the two-thirds test would not be satisfied by
each of the undertakings concerned'.
                                                                   Ð restricts persons holding a Community Medical
                                                                       Specialist Diploma issued pursuant to Council
                                                                       Directive 93/16/EC from having their specialist status
The applicant finally submits that the time taken to
                                                                       publicized in the Medical Register, and
submit the complaint is not unreasonable. First, the
concentration has not been communicated. Secondly, the
Commission's approach disregards the fact that until early         Ð has rules which inhibit direct access to the status of
in 1997 the applicant had no reason to suspect that the                Community Medical Specialist and inhibit advertising
concentration might have a Community dimension.                        by Community Medical Specialists to the public.
(1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1.                                  By letter dated 28 November 1995 the applicant sent the
                                                                   Commission a notice pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By letter dated 6 December 1995 the Commission,
                                                                   declared that it was unable to take a formal position
                                                                   within the prescribed period of two months and stated
                                                                   that it preferred to work towards such a position without
                                                                   any specific framework. By letter dated 1 August 1997 the
                                                                   applicant formally requested the Commission to define its
Action brought on 5 November 1997 by Anthony
                                                                   position with regard to its complaint within two months.
Goldstein against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                        (Case T-286/97)                            It follows, according to the applicant, that the conditions
                                                                   laid down in Article 175 were satisfied and that the
                          (98/C 7/68)                              Commission was required within that provision to take a
                                                                   definitive position on the request within two months.
                                                                   Since no reply has been received from the Commission, it
                                                                   must be considered that this obligation was not complied
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   with.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ C 370, 6. 12. 1997, p. 8.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 November
1997 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St
John Murphy, solicitor, of Merriman White, 3 King's
Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London.
                                                                   Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Regione
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-288/97)
Ð declare that contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty                                       (98/C 7/69)
    the Commission failed to define its position on the
    request submitted to it by the applicant pursuant to
    that provision,                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-382/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Agreements concerning the treatment of municipal waste — Classification — Public contract — Service concession — Advertising measures)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-382/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public service contracts - Directive 92/50/EEC - Agreements concerning the treatment of municipal waste - Classification - Public contract - Service concession - Advertising measures)
   (2007/C 235/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Award of a contract without publication of the appropriate notice — Agreements concluded for the use of the remaining part of municipal waste produced in the municipalities of the Region of Sicily
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, owing to the fact that the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per la protezione civile — Ufficio del Commissario delegato per l'emergenza rifiuti e la tutela delle acque in Sicilia (i) initiated the procedure for the conclusion of agreements concerning the use of that part of municipal waste produced in the municipalities of the Region of Sicily and remaining after the collection of selected material and (ii) concluded those agreements, without following the procedures laid down by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, and, in particular, without publishing the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular under Articles 11, 15 and 17 thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-183/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organization of the market in wine - Compulsory distillation scheme - Admissibility - Regulation of individual concern to the applicant)

text:
?.. 9 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 229/ 19
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Giuseppe Mancini
                        of 29 June 1995                                 against the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori                                       ( Case T-l 13/95 )
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Others v . Commission of                                   ( 95/C 229/45
                the European Communities (*)
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine                               (Language of the case: Italian)
— Compulsory distillation scheme — Admissibility —
     Regulation of individual concern to the applicant)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                           ( 95/C 229/44 )                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the Ispra division of the
                                                                      Joint Research Centre, residing at Varese ( Italy ),
                                                                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, who has a right of
In Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori
                                                                      audience before the Corte di Cassazione della Repubblica
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto, Cantina Cooperativa fra
                                                                      Italiana , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Produttori Vitivinicoli di Quarto d'Altino, Gruppo Pro. Ri .          Chambers of Ernest Arendt.
Ve . Impresa Cooperativa produttori Riuniti Veneti Srl,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Verona Srl ,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali del Vicentino Srl , Cantine Sociali         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Mandamentali di Dolo, Cantina Cooperativa Produttori di
Valdobbiadene, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Campo di                — declare unlawful the removal of Mr Mancini from his
Pietra, Cantina Sociale cooperativa Ponte di Piave, Cantina               post as CEO Project Manager,
Sociale di Ormelle, SpA, Cantina Sociale Cona e Cavarzere
Srl, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Gaiarine, Cantina                 — annul the measure effectively adopted and order the
Sociale Cooperativa Basso Piave a RL, Cantina Sociale di                   Commission to reinstate the applicant in his former
Conegliano SC a RL, Consorzio tra le Cantine Sociali del                  post,
Padovano — Patavini , Cantina prà Maggiore Srl , Cantina
Sociale di Premaore di Camponogara — Cooperativa,                     — award the applicant ECU 10 000 — a sum notified to the
Cantina Sociale di Noale — Cooperativa , Consorzio 'La                     Commission during the administrative procedure — by
Marca' Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Treviso,                        way of compensation for non-material damage ,
Cooperativa Agricola La Salute — Ponte di Piave, Cantina
Sociale Cooperativa di Caposile Srl, Consorzio Agrario                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Interprovinciale TV.BL, Aldo Zanella, Sergio Miotto,
Giovanni Paladin, Franceso Busolin, Luigi Bonotto,
Lamberto Belussi , Giuseppe Busolin, Leonato Nardin,                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Vittorio Meneghello, Alfio Paladin, Galileo Zaninotto,
Giorgio Cecchetto, Antonio Facchin, Silvio Facchin, Enzo              Since 1992 the applicant has held the post of Project
Lorenzon, Carillo Rinaldin, Dino Lorenzon, Primo Toffoli ,            Manager of the CEO ( Centre for Earth Observation )
Renzo Bergamo, Luigi Carraro and Tiziano di Stefani,                  project, reporting to the Director of the ISEI ( Institute for
represented by Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar ( Italy ),      Systems Engineering and Informatics ) of the Joint Research
                                                                      Centre . On 21 March 1994 the Director of the ISEI notified
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the              the applicant orally of the decision removing him from his
European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and                  post by reasons to do with political insensitivity but not
Alberto Dal Ferro ), supported by the Council of the                  more closely specified . The applicant immediately
European Union ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Diego                  submitted a request on 24 March 1994, lodged in
Canga Fano ) — application for the annulment of a number              accordance with Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations,
of Community provisions on compulsory distillation in the             asking that the decision be confirmed in a formal act
wine sector — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber,             specifying the charges against him. Since that request met
Extended Composition ) composed of J. Biancarelli,                    with no response, the applicant submitted a complaint in
President, C. P. Briët, C. B. Bellamy, P. Lindh and J. Azizi ,        accordance with Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 ,           which was in turn followed by a long silence on the part of
                                                                      the administration .
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       On 28 April 1995 the applicant received a reply to his
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    complaint, in which the Commission acknowledged that the
                                                                      decision removing him from his post was only
2 . the applicants are ordered to pay the costs;                      communicated orally and that, by way of a statement of the
                                                                       reasons for that decision, he had been criticized — again,
 3.   the Council shall bear its own costs .                           orally — for being excessively authoritarian in the
                                                                       performance of his duties .
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that his removal from the post of CEO
                                                                       Project Manager is unlawful and unjust on the following
                                                                       grounds :