title: Case T-354/03: Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggimenti against the European Parliament

text:
C 7/38                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary General of the
                         (Case T-352/03)                                        Council of 29 November 2002 not to include her name
                                                                                on the list of officials promoted to Grade C 2 in the 2002
                          (2004/C 7/69)                                         promotions procedure;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
                                                                          In support of her application, the applicant relies on a plea of
                                                                          breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by
—     award damages of 5 000 euros to the applicant as                    considering comparative merits without taking account of the
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                differences in marking between the different departments of
      him as a result of the delay in drawing up the final staff          the institution.
      report (delay in placing a document in his personal file)
      in respect of the period 1999-2001;
—     make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order
      the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      them.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggi-
                                                                                menti against the European Parliament
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general instructions implementing Article 43 of the                                          (Case T-354/03)
Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials. The applicant also claims to have suffered                                     (2004/C 7/71)
non-material damage as a result and that, moreover, he was
the victim of harassment aimed at curtailing his freedom of
association.                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities on 20 October 2003 against the
Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen                    European Parliament by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in
         against the Council of the European Union                        Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Claudine
                                                                          Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-353/03)
                          (2004/C 7/70)                                   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 July
                                                                                2003 in so far as it denies the applicant payment of travel
                                                                                expenses as from 6 August 1999;
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          —     order the European Parliament to pay the applicant travel
on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen, residing in Villers-
                                                                                expenses for her daughter as from 6 August 1999;
la-Ville (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-660/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark POLYTETRAFLON — Earlier Community word mark TEFLON — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Final product incorporating a component — Use of the earlier mark in respect of the final products of third parties — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
   (Case T-660/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark POLYTETRAFLON - Earlier Community word mark TEFLON - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Final product incorporating a component - Use of the earlier mark in respect of the final products of third parties - Duty to state reasons))
   (2015/C 262/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2011 (Case R 2005/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and Polytetra GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2011 (Case R 2005/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polytetra GmbH;

               3.

               Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-330/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gergely Szemerey v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Rural development support measures — Agri-environmental payments — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Articles 23 and 58 — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 — Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species — Application for payment — Contents — Certificate requirement — Penalties for non-presentation)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Gergely Szemerey v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-330/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Rural development support measures - Agri-environmental payments - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Articles 23 and 58 - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 - Aid in respect of the cultivation of a rare plant species - Application for payment - Contents - Certificate requirement - Penalties for non-presentation))
   (2016/C 068/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gergely Szemerey

      Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter, successor in law to Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for by that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 484/2009 of 9 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from requiring that the applicant for agri-environmental aid supply to the paying authority, at the same time as its aid application, a certificate in relation to the rare plant species which gives the applicant the right to payment of that aid, on the condition that that legislation permits the operators concerned to comply under reasonable conditions with the requirements of that legislation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Article 58, third paragraph, of Regulation No 1122/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty imposed in that provision does not apply to an applicant for agri-environmental aid who does not attach a document to his aid application, such as the certificate at issue in the main proceedings, which entitles him to payment of that aid. Article 23(1), third paragraph, of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such an omission leads, in principle, to the inadmissibility of the application for payment of agri-environmental aid.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-438/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
   (Case C-438/11)
   2011/C 347/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lagura Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Question referred

   In the circumstances of the main proceedings, in which the authority of the third country can no longer verify whether the certificate issued by it is based on a correct account of the facts, is the person liable for payment to be denied the protection of legitimate expectations provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) where the circumstances on account of which it is impossible to clarify whether the content of the certificate of origin is correct fall within the sphere of control of the exporter, or is the transfer of the burden of proof, in the context of the third subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, from the customs authority to the person liable for payment subject only, or rather, to the condition that clarification is impossible because it is outside the control of the authority in the exporting country or caused by the negligence of the exporter alone?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) in the version as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).


title: Case C-225/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Cortona (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2009 — Joanna Jakubowska Edyta v Alessandro Maneggia

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Cortona (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2009 — Joanna Jakubowska Edyta v Alessandro Maneggia
   (Case C-225/09)
   2009/C 205/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Cortona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joanna Jakubowska Edyta

      Defendant: Alessandro Maneggia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 3(g), 4, 10, 81 and 98 of the Treaty establishing the European Community be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those in Articles 1 and 2 of Law No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce the incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time public employees and prohibit such employees from practising as lawyers, despite being qualified to do so, by laying down that such lawyers shall be struck off the register by the competent Bar Council unless the public employee opts to relinquish his salaried post?

               2.

               Must Articles 3(g), 4, 10, and 98 of the Treaty establishing the European Community be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those in Articles 1 and 2 of Law No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce the incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time public employees and prohibit such employees from practising as lawyers, despite being qualified to do so, by laying down that such lawyers shall be struck off the register by the competent Bar Council unless the public employee opts to relinquish his salaried post?

               3.

               Must Article 6 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, in providing that ‘[a]ny Member State may exclude lawyers who are in the salaried employment of a public or private undertaking from pursuing activities relating to the representation of that undertaking in legal proceedings in so far as lawyers established in that State are not permitted to pursue those activities’, be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those in Articles 1 and 2 of Law No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce the incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time public employees and prohibit such employees from practising as lawyers, despite being qualified to do so, by laying down that such lawyers shall be struck off the register by the competent Bar Council unless the public employee opts to relinquish his salaried post, where those national rules are also applicable to lawyers in salaried employment practising law under the freedom to provide services?

               4.

               Must Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, which states that ‘A lawyer registered in a host Member State under his home-country professional title may practise as a salaried lawyer in the employ of another lawyer, an association or firm of lawyers, or a public or private enterprise to the extent that the host Member State so permits for lawyers registered under the professional title used in that State’, be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to lawyers in part-time public employment?

               5.

               Do the general principles of Community law on the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights preclude national rules, such as those in Articles 1 and 2 of Law No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce the incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time public employees and which also apply to lawyers already registered at the Bar when Law No 339/2003 came into effect, providing in Article 2 for only a short ‘moratorium’ for them to choose between employment and practice of the profession of lawyer?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17.


title: Case C-264/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 2 June 2014  — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist
   (Case C-264/14)
   2014/C 245/09
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: David Hedqvist

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(1) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that transactions in the form of what has been designated as the exchange of virtual currency for traditional currency and vice versa, which is effected for consideration added by the supplier when the exchange rates are determined, constitute the supply of a service effected for consideration?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 135(1) to be interpreted as meaning that the abovementioned exchange transactions are tax exempt?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-341/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2009 by Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-307/02 Acegas v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/42

         Appeal brought on 21 August 2009 by Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-307/02 Acegas v Commission
   (Case C-341/09 P)
   2009/C 267/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) (represented by F. Ferletic and F. Spitaleri, avvocati, and L. Daniele, academic lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               setting aside of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 in Case T-307/02 ACEGAS-APS v Commission and referral of the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the merits of the action;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs of the appeal and that the costs incurred in relation to the action at first instance should be reserved;
               If the Court should decide that the state of the proceedings permits it to give final judgment in the matter:

               —

               setting aside in its entirety of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC (1) of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding;

               —

               or, alternatively, annulment of Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Italian State to recover the aid granted from the beneficiaries;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs incurred on appeal and at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First plea in law: infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — ACEGAS-APS found not to be individually concerned on the basis of incorrect and irrelevant factual matters
   ACEGAS-APS stresses that the Court’s settled case-law makes capacity to bring an action against Commission decisions relating to aid schemes subject to two conditions: the applicant must be the actual beneficiary of aid granted under the scheme that is the subject of the decision and the decision must contain an order for recovery of the aid. ACEGAS-APS observes that in the instant case those two conditions were not satisfied. The Court of First Instance erred, therefore, in declaring inadmissible the originating application, making reference to further factual matters that were incorrect, irrelevant or foreign to the jurisdiction of that court.
   Second plea in law: infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — the Court of First Instance wrongfully took into consideration, in determining whether the applicant was individually concerned, facts and matters of later date than the adoption of the decision
   ACEGAS-APS maintains that the conditions for capacity to bring proceedings must be met when the contested decision is adopted. The Court of First Instance incorrectly, therefore, ruled that ACEGAS-ASP was not individually concerned, basing its finding on subsequent factual matters relating to the procedure undertaken by the competent Italian authorities for the recovery of the aid allegedly granted.
   Third plea in law: infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence — flaws in the procedure before the Court of First Instance damaging to the appellant’s interests — distortion of the evidence — defect in that the statement of reasons is deficient and contradictory
   During the proceedings at first instance, the Court of First Instance put two written questions, to ACEGAS-APS and the Italian Republic respectively, asking them to inform it of the amount of the aid allegedly received by the appellant. By asking those questions the Court of First Instance acted in breach of ACEGAS-APS’s rights of defence. Furthermore, it distorted the meaning of the replies given, which confirmed that the appellant was the ‘actual beneficiary’ of the income tax exemption scheme challenged by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21.


title: Case T-588/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bananas — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object — Information exchange system — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Rights of the defence — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity of the infringement)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Dole Food and Dole Germany v Commission
   (Case T-588/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Information exchange system - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement)
   2013/C 123/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dole Food Company, Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States); and Dole Germany OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and M. Kellerbauer, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Germany OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2001 in Case T-344/99: Lucía Recalde Langarica v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of defence)

text:
C 3/24                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
2.    Orders that the sums referred to in paragraph (1) above shall            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      bear simple interest at the same rate from the date of the present
      judgment until full and final payment;                                                    of 19 September 2001
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          in Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                 Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                In Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
                                                                           (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          of 20 June 2001                                  Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
in Case T-188/99: Euroalliages v Commission of the                         nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 73/1999-3), which
(Dumping — Decision terminating an expiry review —                         was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                      Action for annulment)                                Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                            (2002/C 3/38)
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-188/99: Euroalliages, whose head office is in Brussels           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(Belgium), represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
N. Khan and, subsequently, V. Kreuschitz and A.P. Bentley) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/426/EC of 4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in
Egypt and Poland (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 91) — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                                       of 20 September 2001
of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           in Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica v Commission
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which                             of the European Communities (1)
it:
                                                                           (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                           the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                                  — Rights of defence)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 3/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica, an official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/25
Brussels, represented by R. Garcı́a-Gallardo and G. Pérez Olmo,           1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                     EUR 109 921, together with post-maturity interest calculated
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                      in accordance with Article 18(7) of Commission Regulation
and J. Rivas Andrés) — application for annulment of the                         (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general
decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999 withdrawing                      rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under
the applicant’s expatriation allowance and withholding from                     Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid,
her remuneration the amounts paid to her in that respect —                      as from 6 May 1999 until the debt is paid in full;
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,                2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 20 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999;
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the claim that the Court make
      an appropriate order requiring the Commission to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 233 EC;
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the applicant.
                                                                                of 19 September 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                          in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Tablet for washing machines or
                                                                          dishwashers — Figurative mark — Absolute ground for
                                                                             refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 3/42)
                      of 19 September 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
(Commission Regulation No 2519/97 — Food aid — Arbi-                      (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
tration clause — Contractual nature of the dispute — Non-                 lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
conformity of the goods delivered — Thefts from warehouses                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
— Transfer of the burden of risk — Deductions from                        and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                              payments)                                   nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                          decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2002/C 3/41)                                  Designs) of 25 November 1999 (Case R 75/1999-3), which
                                                                          was notified to the applicant on 10 December 1999 — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
In Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A., established in Paris (France),            1.    Dismisses the action;
represented by L. Funck-Brentano and J. Villette, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
for an order for payment of sums withheld by the Commission
when paying the balance for a supply of food aid — the Court
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-75/05 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2005 (by fax/email on 11 February 2005) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 1 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-27/02 between Kronofrance SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/15

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2005 (by fax/email on 11 February 2005) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 1 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-27/02 between Kronofrance SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-75/05 P)
   (2005/C 106/30)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-27/02 between Kronofrance SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 (by fax/email on 11 February 2005) by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, of the Federal Ministry of Finance, Berlin, Germany, acting as Agents, as well as by Dr. M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, Germany.
   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               1.

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 (1);

               2.

               give a final decision in the case and dismiss the application as inadmissible, but in any event as unfounded;

               3.

               join these proceedings, for the purposes of the procedure and the judgment, with the parallel appeal brought by Glunz AG;

               4.

               order the applicant in the main proceedings to pay the costs of these appeal proceedings as well as the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-27/02.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested judgment infringes, in particular, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, Article 87(3)(c) EC and Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   First, the applicant lacked locus standi. Individual concern for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC does not flow directly from the status of ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999. Rather, it depends only on the substance of the disputed act and the applicant's competitive situation. A competitor who objects to a grant of aid in preliminary proceedings must make out a case for and, if necessary, prove that he has been ‘appreciably’ affected by the aid granted. Even if being only ‘simply’ affected is considered sufficient, a detailed case to that effect must be made out. The application at first instance should, therefore, have been dismissed as inadmissible, as the applicant had not made out a case for being simply, let alone appreciably, affected.
   Furthermore, the contested judgment infringes points 3.3, 3.4, 3.10 and 3.10.1 of the 1998 multisectoral framework, in that the Court requires the Commission to analyse consumption and any possible decline in the relevant market, even where sufficient data on relevant capacity utilisation is available. In doing so, the Court is also in breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC, having substituted its own assessments for those which only the Commission is entitled to make.
   Finally, the contested judgment also infringes Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance in that the Court failed to investigate of its own motion facts which were relevant to its decision and which would have enabled it to determine the issue of locus standi. This applies, in particular, to the degree of competition between the applicant and the recipient of the aid.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-342/02: Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
25.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/37
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical              Pleas in law and main arguments
to those in Case T-338/02.
                                                                           The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
( 1) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the              T-326/02.
     application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
     of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
     CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.
                                                                           Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-
                                                                           Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-
                                                                                ization in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-342/02)
Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau                                                   (2003/C 19/72)
Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                           (Case T-340/02)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                            (2003/C 19/71)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 8 November 2002 by Metro-
                                                                           Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (United States of America), represented by Fernand de Visscher,
                                                                           Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
                                                                           A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares -
                                                                           Spain).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Nether-
lands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.                                    —     uphold the claim for annulment;
                                                                           —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      5 September 2002;
(1) Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June                  —     confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
       2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided                   19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
       by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands                      number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
       tugboats operating within seaports and on inland water-                   and rejects application for registration no 409664 in its
       ways of the Community;                                                    entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
                                                                                of the trademark ‘MGM’;
(2) In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
       Commission decision, in which the Commission requires               —     annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 Feb-
       the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all                        ruary 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
       measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,                    rejection applicant’s CTM no 141820 of the trademark
       with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to                 ‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
       12 September 1990;                                                        as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
                                                                                registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
       ings.                                                               —     condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           —   Violation of Articles 42 and
                                                                                8 of Regulation 40/94.
                                                                                According to the applicant,
                                                                                an opposition can be based
                                                                                on an earlier community tra-
Applicant for the Com-       Moser Grupo Media, S.L.
                                                                                de mark application that is
munity trade mark:
                                                                                not yet registered as a trade
                                                                                mark.
The Community trade          The figurative trade mark ‘Moser
mark concerned:              Grupo Media, s.l.’ for goods and            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                             services in classes 9, 16, 38, 39                Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                             and 41 (application no 409664)
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant, Metro-Goldwin-
the trade mark or sign       Mayer Lion Corporation
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                             Action brought on 15 November 2002 by Roland Schint-
                                                                           gen against Commission of the European Communities
Trade mark or sign           Several national rights and com-
                                                                                (Case T-343/02)
asserted by way of oppo-     munity trade mark application
sition in the opposition     no 141820 of the word mark
proceedings:                 ‘MGM’ for goods and services in                                        (2003/C 19/73)
                             classes 9, 38 and 41
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the community trade
sition Division:             mark application no 409664 of
                             Moser Grupo Media, disregarding
                             some of the earlier rights and              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             community trade mark appli-                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             cation no 141820 by the applicant           European Communities on 15 November 2002 by Roland
                             in the present case for the word            Schintgen, residing in Keispelt (Luxembourg), represented by
                             mark ‘MGM’                                  Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
Decision of the Board of     Rejection of the appeal by the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Appeal:                      opponent, applicant in the pre-
                             sent case, as inadmissible                  —     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
                                                                               on 16 July 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                               applicant on 28 February 2002 requesting the annulment
                                                                               of the elections to the local staff committee, the appoint-
Grounds of claim:            —    Infringement of Article 58 of
                                                                               ment of the elected members to the staff committee and
                                  Regulation 40/94 (1)in so far
                                                                               the refusal by the Commission to annul the aforemen-
                                  as the applicant is adversely
                                                                               tioned elections and declare that the local staff committee
                                  affected by the decision of
                                                                               in Luxembourg, formed following the said elections, was
                                  the Opposition Division.
                                                                               not validly constituted;
                                  According to the applicant,
                                  it is still possible for Moser
                                  Grupo Media to convert its             —     annul, in so far as necessary, the abovementioned elec-
                                  community trade mark                         tions to the local staff committee in Luxembourg, together
                                  application         in     other             with the appointment of the elected members consequent
                                  countries with the advantage                 thereupon and annul the refusal by the Commission to
                                  of using the date of its Com-                annul the elections and declare unlawful the composition
                                  munity trade mark appli-                     of the local staff committee in Luxembourg which
                                  cation. This would not have                  resulted therefrom;
                                  been possible if the trade
                                  mark application had been              —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings and
                                  rejected on the grounds of                   the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the
                                  the applicant’s Community                    proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence
                                  trade mark application.                      expenses and the remuneration of lawyers.


title: Case C-441/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-441/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/26
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ioan Anghel

      Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?


title: Case T-548/16: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Clarke v EUIPO

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/32

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Clarke v EUIPO
   (Case T-548/16) (1)

   (2017/C 357/41)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-63/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case F-92/09: Action brought on 6 November 2009 — U v Parliament

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/42

         Action brought on 6 November 2009 — U v Parliament
   (Case F-92/09)
   2010/C 11/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: U (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant and compensation for the non-material loss suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 6 July 2009 whereby the appointing authority decided to dismiss the applicant with effect on 1 September 2009;

               —

               award compensation for the non-material loss suffered, quantified, subject to any amendment in the course of the proceedings, in the sum of EUR 15 000;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-314/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea — Definition of the product concerned — Rights of the defence — Advisory Committee — Duty to state reasons — Choice of the method used to define the product concerned — Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council
   (Case T-314/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea - Definition of the product concerned - Rights of the defence - Advisory Committee - Duty to state reasons - Choice of the method used to define the product concerned - Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2010/C 301/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by: M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Albenzio, lawyer), and European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and A. Verheyden, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents) and LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented initially by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker, and subsequently by L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Whirlpool Europe Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and LG Electronics, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic, the European Commission and the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-291/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R.N.G. Eind (Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Right of residence for a family member who is a third-country national — Return of the worker to the Member State of which he is a national — Obligation for the worker's Member State of origin to grant a right of residence to the family member — Whether there is such an obligation where the worker does not carry on any effective and genuine activities)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R.N.G. Eind
   (Case C-291/05) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Right of residence for a family member who is a third-country national - Return of the worker to the Member State of which he is a national - Obligation for the worker's Member State of origin to grant a right of residence to the family member - Whether there is such an obligation where the worker does not carry on any effective and genuine activities)
   (2008/C 51/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

      Defendant: R.N.G. Eind
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nederlandse Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) and of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Right of residence of a family member who is a national of a non-member country — Existence of such a right in the absence of genuine and actual work on the part of the worker — Return of the worker to his or her State of origin — No right of residence in that State for the family member
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               In the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law does not require the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker's family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State where that worker was gainfully employed, that third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992.

               2)

               When a worker returns to the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68 as amended by Regulation No 2434/92, which applies by analogy, to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on any effective and genuine economic activities. The fact that a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker's family did not, before residing in the Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national has no bearing on the determination of that national's right to reside in the latter State.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Vicat SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-37/95)

text:
 No C 101 /16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 4 . 95
      — the allegation in Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Decision that          (2 ) in the event that the Court does not grant the
          the applicant participated in an agreement on the                   application referred to in ( 1 ) above, modify Article 9 of
          setting-up of the 'Cembureau Task Force' or                         the aforesaid Decision so as to cancel or substantially
          'European Task Force' is incorrect,                                 reduce the fine imposed on Vicat;
      — contrary to what is stated in Article 4 (2 ) of the             ( 3 ) order the Commission to pay all the costs,
          Decision, the applicant did not participate in any                  documentary evidence in support of which will be
          agreement on the setting-up of the Joint Trading                    supplied at a later date .
          Company, Intercement; nor was it ever a
          shareholder in that undertaking,                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      — contrary to what is stated in Article 4 ( 3 ) of the            The applicant pleads as follows in support of its
          Decision, the applicant at no time participated               application:
          in concerted practices designed to withdraw
          Calcestruzzi      as   a  customer   from        the  Greek      I. Procédural defects :
          producers,
                                                                              1 , Defective notification of the objections:
      — there is no actual evidence or legal justification for
          the findings in Article 5 of the Decision that the                       ( a ) failure to specify individually the objection
          applicant participated, within the framework of                                of participation in the agreement on non
          the ECEC, in any exchange of information or                                    transhipment to home markets;
          agreements designed to prevent incursions into
          national markets, since the activities of the ECEC                       ( b ) failure to specify individually the evidence
          related solely to markets in third countries,                                  showing the participation by the applicant in
                                                                                the infringement referred to in Article 1 .
      — Article 7 of the Decision is untenable in law and in
          fact, since it was not the task of the WCC to protect               2, breach of the obligation to provide access;
          domestic markets and to export the production
          surpluses of WCC members by universal consent to                    3 , infringement of the substantive rules requiring the
          markets in third countries; in actual fact, there were                  Advisory Committee to be consulted;
          no rules regarding domestic markets, and the
          activities of the WCC related exclusively to markets                4, breach of the principle of impartiality.
          in third countries,
                                                                         II. Infringement of Article 85 by reason of manifest defects
      — lastly, Articles 9 and 10 of the Decision seriously                   in the statement of reasons for the decision :
          disregard the requirement of fault, the question of
          prescription and the criteria laid down by the Court                1 . The Commission has failed to adduce sufficient
          of Justice as to the determination of the level of                      evidence in law to show that the applicant
          fines .                                                                 participated in a 'general agreement on
                                                                                non-transhipment to home markets'.
                                                                              2. Absence of any concerted practice with Buzzi: the
                                                                                applicant contests, first, the allegation that its
                                                                                exchange of price information with Buzzi is capable
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Vicat SA against                            of constituting an infringement of Article 85 ;
       the Commission of the European Communities                                 second, it considers that the conduct found to have
                          ( Case T-37/95 )                                        taken place is justified on grounds other than those
                            ( 95/C 101 /34 )                                      put forward by the Commission and that that
                                                                                justification is such that, in accordance with settled
                                                                                case-law, the conduct in question cannot qualify as
                  (Language of the case: French)                                  an infringement in the present case.
An action against the Commission of the European                       III. The applicant contends that the fine is manifestly
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             excessive, even assuming that certain facts alleged
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                           against it are found to constitute an infringement:
1995 by Vicat SA, the head office of which is in Paris,
represented by Edouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland,                      1 . in determining the amount of the fine imposed on
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                       the applicant, the Commission manifestly failed to
at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                                take account of the specific circumstances
                                                                                attaching to the applicant. In so doing, the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      Commission wrongly assessed the gravity of the
                                                                                infringement as regards the applicant;
( 1 ) annul, wholly or in part, Articles 1 , 3 ( 1 ) (c ) and 9 of the
      Decision of the Commission of 30 November 1994 in                       2 , the duration of the infringements found by the
      so far as those articles concern Vicat;                                     Commission to have been committed by the
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 4 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 101 / 17
           applicant bears no relation to the facts upon which       Substantive defects
           it relies;
                                                                     The Commission erred in its demarcation of the relevant
       3 , the Commission erred in its determination of the
                                                                     geographical markets; for that reason alone, its findings
           basis on which the fine was to be imposed .               regarding restriction of competition were incorrect.
                                                                     The Commission sought to bracket together all agreements
                                                                     and practices into a 'single and continuing agreement',
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Heidelberger                   without stating any reasons therefor . In so doing, it
Zement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the              construed — wrongly in law — a network of ostensible
                      European Communities                           connections, and thus of possible imputations.
                          (Case T-42/95 )                            The conduct of other undertakings or associations of
                           ( 95/C 101 /35                            undertakings cannot be imputed to the applicant as regards
                                                                     membership of an association of undertakings .
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     The Commission is unable to prove the existence of any
An action against the Commission of the European                     'agreement on non-transhipment to domestic markets'. The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Commission has no evidence to show that the information
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                  emerging from the meetings between the Head Delegates
1995 by Heidelberger Zement Aktiengesellschaft of                    was passed on to, and acted upon by, the applicant. No
Heidelberg ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by            evidence has been adduced to show that the duration of any
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, and Hans-Jorg              agreement extended beyond 10 June 1985 .
Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                    Nor is the Commission able to prove the existence of any
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe .                                              agreement or concerted practice restricting cross-border
                                                                     trade between Germany and France.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Articles 173            The Commission's allegation regarding participation in
     and 174 of the EC Treaty, the Decision of the                   agreements for the setting-up of the European Task Force
     Commission of 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126                ( ETF ) and a joint trading company, and in concerted
     and 33.322 — Cement), in so far as it concerns the              practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi as a customer
     applicant,                                                      from the Greek producers, are based solely on the presence
                                                                     of Heidelberger Zement at a meeting in Rome . Nothing
— in the alternative, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation           impermissible was discussed or predetermined at that
     No 17 of 6 February 1962, vary Article 9 of the decision,       meeting. The Commission is unable to adduce any other
     in so far as it concerns the applicant, so as to cancel or      evidence .
     considerably reduce the fine imposed on the
     applicant,                                                      The Commission has not given reasons for the size of the
                                                                     fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, it has failed to
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) of the          fulfil its obligation to determine the amount of fines on an
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to pay       individual basis, in that it failed to take into consideration
     the costs of the proceedings necessarily incurred by the        the individual conduct of Heidelberger Zement and its
     applicant.                                                      position within the alleged cartel . Consequently, the fine has
                                                                     been invalidly imposed .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Procedural defects
The applicant objects that the statement of objections
communicated to it was incomplete and unclear . It was
expressed in such blanket terms ('the European cement
producers ') that the applicant was unable to identify               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Aalborg
specifically which aspects of its conduct were the subject of        Portland A/S against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
complaint.
                                                                                ( Case T-44/95 )
The grant of access to the documentation was dealt with in a
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /36 )
discriminatory way. It was limited merely to part of the
documentation, without adequate reasons being given.
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Danish)
From the outset, the periods prescribed for replying to the
statement of objections were too short.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
At the oral hearing, the applicant's right to participate, and       Communities was brought before the Court of First
to an even greater extent its right to make oral statements,         Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
was restricted .                                                     1995 by Aalborg Portland A/S, Aalborg (Denmark),


title: Case C-143/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Imports of certain pipes and tubes of iron or steel — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Damage to industry — Known factors — Causal link — Failure to take into account an investigation into anti-competitive practices by Community undertakings in the relevant sector — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 — Validity)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-143/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Imports of certain pipes and tubes of iron or steel - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Damage to industry - Known factors - Causal link - Failure to take into account an investigation into anti-competitive practices by Community undertakings in the relevant sector - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Validity))
   (2015/C 198/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.