title: Case C-583/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Protection of workers — Collective redundancies — Scope — Closure of an American military base — Information and consultation of workers — Time at which the consultation obligation arises — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — United States of America v Christine Nolan
   (Case C-583/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Protection of workers - Collective redundancies - Scope - Closure of an American military base - Information and consultation of workers - Time at which the consultation obligation arises - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2012/C 379/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: United States of America

      Defendant: Christine Nolan

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Employer’s obligation to inform and consult the workers’ representatives — Determination of the time at which that obligation arises

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), by decision of 6 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-559/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2014  — French Republic v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment — Existence of the guarantee — Presence of State resources — Advantage — Burden and standard of proof)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — French Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-559/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - State aid - Aid in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment - Existence of the guarantee - Presence of State resources - Advantage - Burden and standard of proof))
   2014/C 159/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Gstalter and by J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 in Case T 154/10 France v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the French Republic for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C 56/07 (ex E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1) — Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an unlimited implied guarantee in favour of La Poste resulting from its status as a publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment — Establishment outside the scope of the ordinary law on administration and compulsory liquidation of firms in difficulty — Existence of an advantage — Existence of a transfer of State resources — Burden and standard of proof — Equiparation of the conditions under which State liability is incurred with a guarantee mechanism

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-616/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Market sharing and price coordination — Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission — Appeal on the costs)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA v European Commission
   (Case C-616/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))
   (2016/C 296/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-99/09 and T-308/09: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Italy v Commission (ERDF — Campania Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2000-2006 — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 32(3)(f) — Decision not to make interim payments in connection with the ROP measure concerning waste management and disposal — Infringement procedure in respect of Italy)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-99/09 and T-308/09) (1)

   (ERDF - Campania Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2000-2006 - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 32(3)(f) - Decision not to make interim payments in connection with the ROP measure concerning waste management and disposal - Infringement procedure in respect of Italy)
   2013/C 156/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili and, additionally, in Case T-99/09, by G. Palmieri, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of the decisions contained in the Commission’s letters of 22 December 2008, and of 2 and 6 February 2009 (Nos 012480, 000841 and 001059 — Case T-99/09) and of 20 May 2009 (No 004263 — Case T-308/09) declaring that the interim payment applications submitted by the Italian Authorities for the reimbursement of expenditure incurred after 29 June 2007 in connection with Measure 1.7 of the ‘Campania’ Operational Programme are ‘unacceptable’ under Article 32(3)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-185/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i Stockholms län by order of that court of 20 April 2004 in the proceedings between Ulf Öberg and Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i Stockholms län by order of that court of 20 April 2004 in the proceedings between Ulf Öberg and Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa
   (Case C-185/04)
   (2004/C 179/04)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Stockholms län of 20 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ulf Öberg and Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa on the following questions:

               (i)

               Is a requirement in national legislation that a parent have been resident and be covered by health insurance in the Member State in question for at least 240 days prior to the child's birth in order to be entitled to parental benefit in accordance with the parent's sickness benefit compatible with Articles 12, 17(2), 18 and 39 EC, Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (1) and Directive No 96/34 (2) on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC?

               (ii)

               If question (i) is answered in the affirmative: does Community law require that, in the determination of whether the worker fulfils the qualification period for insurance under national law, cumulation shall take place with a period during which the worker was covered by the Joint Sickness insurance scheme pursuant to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II), p. 475).

      (2)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 March 1996 in Case T-93/94: Michael Becker v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Classification in step - Seniority - Equal treatment - Duty to have regard to the interests of officials)

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 108/9
     candidatures for the posts declared vacant by Notice               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     No C] 68/92, and the defendant's decision of 27 June                                     of 7 March 1996
     1994, in so far as it rejects the part of complaint               in Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of
     Cont. 12/94-R lodged against that decision;
                                                                                the European Communities ( 1 )
4 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible with the
                                                                       dignity of the public service — Duty to act in good faith —
5 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs, and one                      Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
     quarter of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to                                      ( 96/C 108/ 19 )
     bear three-quarters of his own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                       In Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams, a former official of the
                                                                       Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                       Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis, v. Court
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :
                        of 6 March 1996                                Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) —
in Case T-93 /94 : Michael Becker v . Court of Auditors of the         application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Court of Auditors of 24 June 1993 removing the applicant
                                                                       from his post without reduction or withdrawal of his
(Officials — Classification in step — Seniority — Equal                entitlement to a retirement pension, second, of the decision
treatment — Duty to have regard to the interests of                    of 24 January 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and,
                               officials)                              third, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of
                           ( 96/C 108/ 18 )                            23 January 1994 impliedly rejecting that complaint — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                       R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas and
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       J. Azizi , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in
In Case T-93/94 : Michael Becker, an official at the Court             which it :
of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the                       1 , dismisses the action;
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis, v-.
Court of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :               2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan Inghelram ) — application for
the annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
concerning his classification in step — the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , annuls the refusal of the Court of Auditors to reclassify                                of 7 March 1996
     the applicant in step, pursuant to Council Regulation
     (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3947/92 of 21 December                    in Case T-362/94: Jan Robert De Rijk v. Commission of the
     1 992 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and                               European Communities ( ] )
     the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the              (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
     European Communities, with effect from 1 January                   officials posted outside the Communities — Procedure for
     1993 , as he had requested by letter of 5 February 1993,                       reimbursement of medical expenses)
     together with the Court of Auditors ' decision of                                            ( 96/C 108/20 )
     2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
     against that refusal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 2 , orders the Court ofAuditors to bear its own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the applicant.                           In Case T-362/94 : Jan Robert De Rijk, an official of the
                                                                        European Communities, residing at Helsinki , represented
                                                                        by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                        SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian


title: Case T-266/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Measures implemented by the German authorities for Deutsche Post AG — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Service of general economic interest — Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector — No advantage)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-266/02) (1)

   (State aid - Measures implemented by the German authorities for Deutsche Post AG - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector - No advantage)
   (2008/C 209/66)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J. Flett, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: F. Mitzkus, T. Wambach and R. Wojtek, lawyers); and UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by T. Ottervanger and A. Bijleveld, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2002 L 247, p. 27).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) and UPS Europe NV/SA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-371/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2013 — SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2013 — SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu
   (Case C-371/13)
   2014/C 85/17
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu
   By Order of 7 November 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) finds that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred to it by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania).


title: Case T-74/10: Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/64

         Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)
   (Case T-74/10)
   2010/C 100/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Flaco Geräte GmbH (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jesús Delgado Sánchez (Socuellamos, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 86/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in classes 7, 8, 9 and 11

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration of the mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in class 7

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application for the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly took into account a wrong translation of the goods covered by the mark cited in the opposition proceedings; infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not take into account the plea of non use filed by the applicant.


title: Case C-197/99 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment: delivered on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-37/97 between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Walloon Region and the Société Wallonne pour la Sidérurgie, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 281/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
Appeal brought on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of                          — order the respondent to pay the costs.
Belgium against the judgment: delivered on 25 March
1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-37/97 between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported                  Pleas in law and main arguments
by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Walloon Region and the
Société Wallonne pour la Sidérurgie, and the Commission
                of the European Communities                              Infringement of Community law (error of reasoning and
                                                                         disregard of the principle of legal certainty; erroneous charac-
                                                                         terisation in law of the facts found):
                        (Case C-197/99 P)
                                                                         — (As regards the SNCI and Belfin loans)
                         (1999/C 281/01)
                                                                              Absence of a statement of reasons: although the Court of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999                     First Instance identified the aid element, namely the
by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court                     guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans rather
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-37/97                 than the loans as such, it did not identify the SNCI and
between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported by the Kingdom of                     Belfin loans mentioned by the Commission, in particular
Belgium, the Walloon Region and the Société Wallonne pour                     the SNCI loans referred to, whereas the applicant had
la Sidérurgie SA, and the Commission of the European                          specifically criticised the absence of reasons for the contest-
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    ed decision. Such identification was however necessary,
European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of                         since several loans were granted to Forges de Clabecq, as
Belgium, represented by Anni Snoecx, Adviser in the Legal                     the Court of First Instance recalled. Moreover, all of those
Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and                loans were covered by a State guarantee.
Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, assisted by J.-M. de
Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with           — (As regards the guarantees in respect of the SNCI loans)
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy,
4 Rue des Girondins.                                                          Erroneous characterisation in law of the facts, resulting in
                                                                              a failure to have regard to the principle of legal certainty
                                                                              and an absence of reasons.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 — (As regards the Belfin loans)
    Instance of the European Communities on 25 March 1999
    in Case T-37/97 (1), rejecting as to their substance the                  Failure by the Court of First Instance to adjudicate on a
    submissions made by the appellant in support of the form                  plea in law (alleging the existence of a mechanism for
    of order sought by the applicant in the proceedings at first              the provision of a counter-guarantee by the intended
    instance in so far as they refer to ‘State guarantees in                  beneficiaries of the Belfin loans, who contribute to a
    respect of the Belfin and SNCI loans’;                                    ‘Guarantee fund’).
— consequently, uphold the submissions made by the appli-
    cant in the proceedings at first instance in so far as they
    refer to ‘State guarantees in respect of the Belfin and SNCI         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 19.
    loans’, and accordingly annul the Commission’s decision
    No C-43/96 of 18 December 1996 entitled ‘ECSC steel
    — Forges de Clabecq’, in so far as it refers to ‘State
    guarantees in respect of the Belfin and SNCI loans’;


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 June 2013 in Case E-11/12 — Beatrix Susanne Koch, Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG (Directive 90/619/EEC — Directive 92/96/EEC — Directive 2002/83/EC — Directive 2002/92/EC — Life assurance — Unit-linked benefits — Obligation to provide fair advice — Information to be communicated to the policy holder before the contract is concluded — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               26.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/12

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 13 June 2013
   in Case E-11/12
   Beatrix Susanne Koch, Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG
   (Directive 90/619/EEC — Directive 92/96/EEC — Directive 2002/83/EC — Directive 2002/92/EC — Life assurance — Unit-linked benefits — Obligation to provide fair advice — Information to be communicated to the policy holder before the contract is concluded — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness)
   2013/C 277/10
   In Case E-11/12 Beatrix Susanne Koch, Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG — REQUEST to the Court from the Fürstliche Landgericht des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Princely Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein) under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance and Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 13 June 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) and Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not require the assurance undertaking to provide advice to the policy holder before the contract is concluded.

               2.

               Article 31 and points a11 and a12 of Annex II(A) of Directive 92/96/EEC and Article 36 and points a11 and a12 of Annex III(A) of Directive 2002/83/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court, in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case before it, to determine whether the written information communicated to the policy holder before a contract on unit-linked life assurance was concluded is complete, clear and accurate; and

                           —

                           sufficient to define the units to which the benefits are linked, and

                           —

                           sufficient to describe the nature of the underlying assets,

                     such that the prospective policy holder was able to choose the contract best suited to his/her needs.

               3.

               As long as the information is complete and communicated to the policy holder on the terms set out in Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC and Article 36 of Directive 2002/83/EC, and in accordance with other rules applicable to the communication of information to the policy holder, it suffices that the information listed in Annex II and Annex III, respectively, is communicated to the policy holder by a third party, for example, an insurance intermediary.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case the EEA Agreement and Directive 92/96/EEC and Directive 2002/83/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which provides for an administrative complaint procedure after losses have been incurred pursuant to a failure on the part of an assurance undertaking to comply with the requirement to provide information set out in Article 31(1) of Directive 92/96/EEC and Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, provided:

                           —

                           first, that the right to claim compensation for pecuniary loss from that assurance undertaking for a failure to communicate the information prescribed in Annex II to Directive 92/96/EEC and Annex III to Directive 2002/83/EC is no less favourable than that applicable to similar domestic actions, and,

                           —

                           second, that the application of national law does not render it practically impossible or excessively difficult for the policy holder to exercise rights conferred by the directives.

                     It is for the national court to ascertain whether those two conditions are met.


title: Case T-115/07: Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/23

         Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)
   (Case T-115/07)
   (2007/C 129/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Last Minute Tour SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Quash in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the respondent, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), dated 8 February 2007;

               —

               declare CTM No 1 552 231 invalid in respect of class 16;

               —

               award the costs against the respondent.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘LAST MINUTE TOUR ’for products and services in classes 16, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 552 231

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Last Minute Tour SpA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national non-registered word mark ‘LASTMINUTE.COM ’for services in classes 39 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the services in classes 39 and 42 and rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity for the goods in class 16

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal lodged by the applicant asking the partial annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision in order to obtain a declaration of invalidity also for the goods in class 16

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly decided that the applicant's non registered trade mark did not confer on him the right to prohibit the use in the United Kingdom of the trade mark applied for and as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the test to establish likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-74/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Eturas’ UAB and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Travel agencies using a common computerised booking system — Automatic restriction of the discount rates available for online bookings — System administrator’s message in relation to that restriction — Tacit agreement capable of being characterised as a concerted practice — Constituent elements of an agreement and of a concerted practice — Assessment of evidence and standard of proof — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of effectiveness — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Eturas’ UAB and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba
   (Case C-74/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Concerted practice - Travel agencies using a common computerised booking system - Automatic restriction of the discount rates available for online bookings - System administrator’s message in relation to that restriction - Tacit agreement capable of being characterised as a concerted practice - Constituent elements of an agreement and of a concerted practice - Assessment of evidence and standard of proof - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Presumption of innocence))
   (2016/C 098/03)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants:‘Eturas’ UAB, ‘AAA Wrislit’ UAB, ‘Baltic Clipper’ UAB, ‘Baltic Tours Vilnius’ UAB, ‘Daigera’ UAB, ‘Ferona’ UAB, ‘Freshtravel’ UAB, ‘Guliverio kelionės’ UAB, ‘Kelionių akademija’ UAB, ‘Kelionių gurmanai’ UAB, ‘Kelionių laikas’ UAB, ‘Litamicus’ UAB, ‘Megaturas’ UAB, ‘Neoturas’ UAB, ‘TopTravel’ UAB, ‘Travelonline Baltics’ UAB, ‘Vestekspress’ UAB, ‘Visveta’ UAB, ‘Zigzag Travel’ UAB, ‘ZIP Travel’ UAB

      Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

      Intervening parties:‘Aviaeuropa’ UAB, ‘Grand Voyage’ UAB, ‘Kalnų upė’ UAB, ‘Keliautojų klubas’ UAB, ‘Smaragdas travel’ UAB, ‘700LT’ UAB, ‘Aljus ir Ko’ UAB, ‘Gustus vitae’ UAB, ‘Tropikai’ UAB, ‘Vipauta’ UAB, ‘Vistus’ UAB

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where the administrator of an information system, intended to enable travel agencies to sell travel packages on their websites using a uniform booking method, sends to those economic operators, via a personal electronic mailbox, a message informing them that the discounts on products sold through that system will henceforth be capped and, following the dissemination of that message, the system in question undergoes the technical modifications necessary to implement that measure, those economic operators may — if they were aware of that message — be presumed to have participated in a concerted practice within the meaning of that provision, unless they publicly distanced themselves from that practice, reported it to the administrative authorities or adduce other evidence to rebut that presumption, such as evidence of the systematic application of a discount exceeding the cap in question.
   It is for the referring court to examine — on the basis of the national rules governing the assessment of evidence and the standard of proof — whether, in view of all the circumstances before it, the dispatch of a message, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute sufficient evidence to establish that the addressees of that message were aware of its content. The presumption of innocence precludes the referring court from considering that the mere dispatch of that message constitutes sufficient evidence to establish that its addressees ought to have been aware of its content.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-673/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ — Documents relating to the authorisation procedure for an active substance contained in plant protection products — Active substance glyphosate)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)
   (Case C-673/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ - Documents relating to the authorisation procedure for an active substance contained in plant protection products - Active substance glyphosate))
   (2017/C 030/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Ondrůšek, P. Oliver, and by L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: American Chemistry Council Inc. (ACC), CropLife America Inc., National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America (NAM) (respresented by: M. Abenhaïm, avocat, K. Nordlander, advokat, and P. Harrison, Solicitor), CropLife International AISBL (CLI) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Barrister, R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocats, and A. Patsa, dikigoros), European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) (represented by: I. Antypas and D. Waelbroeck, avocats, and D. Slater, Solicitor), European Crop Care Association (ECCA) (represented by S. Pappas, dikigoros), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents,

      The other parties to the proceedings being: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, advocaten)

      Intervener in support of the respondent: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, U. Persson, C. Meyer-Seitz and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2013, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (T-545/11, EU:T:2013:523);

               2.

               Refers Case T-545/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-210/09: Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Formenti Seleco v Commission (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of colour televisions from Turkey — Application for damages — Statute barred — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/23

         Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Formenti Seleco v Commission
   (Case T-210/09) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Importation of colour televisions from Turkey - Application for damages - Statute barred - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 204/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Formenti Seleco SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Malatesta, G. Terracciano and S. Malatesta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to take measures preventing the Turkish authorities from infringing the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey when determining the origin of colour televisions imported into the Community from Turkey.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Formenti Seleco SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-507/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 25 October 2010 — Denise Bernardi, represented by Katia Mecacci v Fabio Bernardi

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 25 October 2010 — Denise Bernardi, represented by Katia Mecacci v Fabio Bernardi
   (Case C-507/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Firenze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Denise Bernardi, represented by Katia Mecacci

      Defendant: Fabio Bernardi

      Question referred

   Must Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1) be interpreted as precluding national provisions, such as Article 392(1a) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as the latter does not impose an obligation on the Public Prosecutor to request an early hearing and examination of a victim who is a minor by means of the Special Inquiry procedure prior to the main proceedings, and Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not make it possible for that minor victim himself or herself to appeal to the courts against a negative decision by the Public Prosecutor on his or her request to be heard in accordance with the appropriate Special Inquiry procedure?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1.


title: Case T-73/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/38

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-73/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/44)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 of the judgment itself;

               —

               Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-37/12).
   The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-70/16 P De Nicola v EIB.


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/22

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   (2007/C 42/40)
   On 15 January 2007, the Court of First Instance decided, following the entry into office as Judges of Mr Tchipev and Mr Ciucă, to change the composition of the Chambers for the period from 15 January 2007 to 31 August 2007 and to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:

                  First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

                           Mr Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka, Mr Prek and Mr Ciucă, Judges;

                  First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Cooke, President of the Chamber

                                       (a)

                                       Mr García-Valdecasas and Mr Ciucă, Judges;

                                       (b)

                                       Ms Labucka and Mr Prek, Judges;

                  Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

                           Mr Pirrung, President of the Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

                  Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Pirrung, President of the Chamber

                                       (a)

                                       Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges;

                                       (b)

                                       Mr Forwood and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

                  Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

                           Mr Jaeger, President of the Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona, Mr Czúcz and Mr Tchipev, Judges;

                  Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Jaeger, President of the Chamber

                                       (a)

                                       Ms Tiili, Mr Czúcz and Mr Tchipev, Judges;

                                       (b)

                                       Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges;

                  Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

                           Mr Legal, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Moavero Milanesi and Mr Wahl, Judges;

                  Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Legal, President of the Chamber

                                       (a)

                                       Mr Vadapalas and Mr Wahl, Judges;

                                       (b)

                                       Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges;

                  Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

                           Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

                  Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber

                                       (a)

                                       Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

                                       (b)

                                       Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges.

         In the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the formation of five Judges will be the three judges of the formation which initially heard the case and one judge from the other formation to be designated in turn in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   In the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the formation of five Judges will be:

               —

               where the case was initially heard by formation (a), in addition to the three Judges who sit in that formation, two Judges, sitting as assessors, from formation (b);

               —

               where the case was initially heard by formation (b), in addition to the three Judges who sit in that formation, two Judges, sitting as assessors, from formation (a), to be designated in turn.

         In the Third Chamber sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with formation (b) or with two of the three Judges of formation (a) above, depending on the formation to which the Judge-Rapporteur belongs. For the purposes of composing formation (a), a rota will be established among those Judges in order to determine which of the three Judges is not to sit.
   In the Second, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with the Judges of formation (a) above or with the Judges referred to at (b) above, depending on the formation to which the Judge-Rapporteur belongs.
   For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of one or other of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.
   Criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers
   On 15 January 2007, the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 15 January 2007 to 31 August 2007, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure::

               1.

               Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.

               2.

               Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas, namely:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

                     In applying those rotas, the Third Chamber shall be taken into consideration twice at each fifth turn.
               The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case T-251/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Director-General of OLAF v Commission (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Decision to waive the immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of OLAF — Measure liable to call into question the independence of the Director-General — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Director-General of OLAF v Commission
   (Case T-251/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Decision to waive the immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of OLAF - Measure liable to call into question the independence of the Director-General - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 326/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (represented by: L. Jelínek, Agent, assisted by G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking to obtain suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 6 June 2016 made in Case T-251/16 R is set aside.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-145/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 17 March 2005 in Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci Spa

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 17 March 2005 in Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci Spa
   (Case C-145/05)
   (2005/C 132/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co and Casucci Spa on the following questions:

               1.

               For the purposes of determining the scope of protection of a trade mark which has been lawfully acquired on the basis of its distinctive character, in accordance with Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1), must the court take into account the perception of the public concerned at the time when use commenced of the trade mark or similar sign which allegedly infringes the trade mark?

               2.

               If not, may the court take into account the perception of the public concerned at any time after commencement of the use complained of? Is it entitled in particular to take into account the perception of the public concerned at the time it delivers its ruling?

               3.

               Where, in application of the criterion referred to in the first question, the court finds that the trade mark has been infringed, is it entitled, as a general rule, to order cessation of the infringing use of the sign?

               4.

               Can the position be different if the claimant's trade mark has lost its distinctive character wholly or in part after commencement of the infringing use, but solely where that loss is due wholly or in part to an act or omission by the proprietor of that trade mark?

      (1)  OJ L 40, 11.02.1989, p. 1.


title: Case C-308/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany), lodged on 20 June 2011 — Chemische Fabrik Kreussler & Co. GmbH v John O. Butler GmbH

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany), lodged on 20 June 2011 — Chemische Fabrik Kreussler & Co. GmbH v John O. Butler GmbH
   (Case C-308/11)
   2011/C 282/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Chemische Fabrik Kreussler & Co. GmbH

      Respìondent: John O. Butler GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purpose of defining the term ‘pharmacological action’ in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC, (2) can recourse be had to the document compiled under the auspices of the European Commission to provide guidance in distinguishing between medicinal products and medical devices (the ‘Medical Devices: Guidance document’), which states that there must be an interaction between the molecules of the substance in question and a cellular constituent, usually referred to as a receptor, which either results in a direct response or blocks the response of another agent?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does the term ‘pharmacological action’ require that there should be an interaction between the molecules of the substance in question and cellular constituents of the user, or is it sufficient if there is an interaction between the substance in question and a cellular constituent which does not form part of the human body?

               3.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative or that neither of the two definitions proposed in the second question is appropriate: which alternative definition should be used instead?

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

      (2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).


title: Case T-405/12: Action brought on 10 September 2012 — FH (*) v Commission

text:
                  27.10.2012

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 331/32

         Action brought on 10 September 2012 —  FH (*1) v Commission
         (Case T-405/12)
         (2012/C 331/61)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: FH (*1) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Commission

            Form of order sought

                     —

                     Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

                     —

                     Consequently,

                                 —

                                 before making its ruling, and as a measure of enquiry, order the production of the framework contract DI/06350-00 which was concluded between the Commission and the company Intrasoft;

                                 —

                                 annul the decision of 10 July 2012 and, as a result, the erratum of 11 July 2012;

                                 —

                                 order the European Commission to compensate it for the harm suffered by the applicant, set at the total sum of EUR 12 500, which is subject to increase in the course of the proceedings;

                                 —

                                 in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                     1.

                     The first plea in law alleges infringement of the following principles: the duty to state reasons, the protection of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence, the applicant having been informed orally of the contested decision withdrawing with immediate effect the documents giving him access to Commission buildings and that decision being referred to only in the minutes of a meeting between the applicant and the Commission’s human resources and security department. The applicant claims that the contested decision does not refer to the factors which led the Commission to take such a decision and that the legal basis of the decision was communicated to the applicant by an erratum issued after the decision took effect.

                     2.

                     The second plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, in so far as it would appear that the only basis for the contested decision is an interview held by the Belgian police with the applicant in the course of an enquiry of which he is not the object but which concerns a childhood friend with whom he telephoned from time to time.

                     3.

                     The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality, the Commission having denied the applicant access to Commission buildings although no charges had been laid against him and he is not the object of the police investigation in question.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.


title: Case T-402/15: Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/57

         Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Republic of Poland v European Commission
   (Case T-402/15)
   (2015/C 311/62)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 3228) concerning the refusal to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural assistance under the Convergence objective in Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 41(1) in conjunction with Articles 56(3) and 60(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and of the principle of sincere cooperation, by carrying out an appraisal of the project in a way going beyond the selection criteria laid down by the Monitoring Committee even though those criteria had not been questioned by the Commission at the time of their adoption, and infringement of Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, by seriously exceeding the time-limit for appraising the project.

               2.

               Second plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), by the assumption that only investments with the greatest potential for diffusion of innovation could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not guarantee compliance with the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of innovative character.

               3.

               Third plea in law: incorrect interpretation of the conditions for allowing co-financing from the ERDF, by the assumption that only investments creating highly qualified jobs could be co-financed, and incorrect assessment of the project by the assumption that it did not create highly qualified jobs.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: incorrect assessment of the project, by the assumption that it did not guarantee the realisation of the aims of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ because of lack of added value and lack of incentive effect.


3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Case C-261/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 281/2               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-261/99)                                                            (Case C-263/99)
                        (1999/C 281/02)
                                                                                (1999/C 281/03)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July
represented by Gérard Rozet, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,             1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of               represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
    time-limit the measures necessary in order to recover from           the Court should:
    Nouvelles Filatures Lainière de Roubaix, the recipient
    thereof, the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with
    the common market by the decision of the Commission of               a) Declare that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the
    4 November 1998, which was notified on 17 November                       activity of transport consultant, the Italian Republic has
    1998, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of
    under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 CE and                         the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and
    Articles 4 and 5 of that decision:                                       49 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission’s decision, which is binding in its entirety
upon the State to which it is addressed (as provided for by the
fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC), requires the French
Republic as from 17 November 1998, first, to recover, in                 (Infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty
accordance with Article 4 thereof, the aid granted in the form           (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
of an investment premium amounting to FRF 14.23 million
and to discontinue forthwith the aid granted in the form of a
participating loan by applying normal market terms. In
addition, the French Republic is required under Article 5 to             The applicant doubts whether Article 3(1)(a) of Law No 264,
inform the Commission, within two months from notification               which restricts work as a consultant to nationals of other
of the decision of the measures taken to comply with it. The             Member States who are resident in Italy, is compatible
action for annulment which has been brought (1) does not                 with the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of
have suspensory effect, and the French Republic has at no time           nationality.
made any application for suspension of operation of the
contested decision.
                                                                         (Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty
The attitude adopted by the French Republic vis-à-vis the                (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
Commission as regards compliance with the decision in
question has been one of total silence. At no time since
its decision was notified on 17 November 1998 has the
                                                                         Moreover, Law No 264 appears to be contrary to Article 49
Commission been able to ascertain any factor enabling it to
                                                                         EC, which provides for the removal of obstacles to freedom to
conclude that the French Republic has taken any steps                    provide services across borders within the Community. The
whatever with a view to recovering from Nouvelles Filatures              aforementioned legislation as a whole categorically precludes
Lainière de Roubaix the illegal and incompatible aid granted
                                                                         the possibility that foreign operators established in other
to that undertaking.
                                                                         Member States may occasionally provide services in the field
                                                                         in question.
(1) Case C-17/99, OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 22.


10.2.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-332/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/34)                                                     (2001/C 45/37)
By order of 20 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
from the register of Case C-440/99: Commission of the              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-332/99:
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 6.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/00 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-69/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/35)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/38)
By order of 25 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-48/00: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                           from the register of Case C-69/00: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-290/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-197/98 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/36)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/39)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-290/98: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-197/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                         Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case F-64/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — Bergström v Commission (Staff case — Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Candidates names included on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules on grading upon recruitment — Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules — Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — Bergström v Commission
   (Case F-64/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates names included on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules on grading upon recruitment - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 234/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ragnar Bergström (Linkebeek, Belgium) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and, subsequently, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 August 2005 by which the applicant, a member of the temporary staff who was successful in open competition COM/A/3/02, was appointed as an official in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 36.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 1999 in Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European Union (Proceedings for interim relief - Suspension of operation of Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 - Withdrawal of bacitracin zinc from the list of authorised additives - Directive 70/524/EEC - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

text:
C 281/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           INSTANCE                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim, v European Parliament (Agents: Hannu von
                        of 30 June 1999                                  Hertzen and João Sant’Anna) — application for suspension of
                                                                         operation of the recruitment procedure commenced by vacan-
                                                                         cy notice No 8675 of 14 April 1999 — the President of the
in Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the                        Court of First Instance made an order on 1 July 1999, the
                        European Union                                   operative part of which is as follows:
(Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of bacitracin                    1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
zinc from the list of authorised additives — Directive
      70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                     2. The costs are reserved.
                        (1999/C 281/31)
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc., established at Fort Lee
(United States of America), represented by Gavin Robert,
Solicitor, and Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Council of the              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Moyra Sims and                                                INSTANCE
Jorge Monteiro), supported by Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou
and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Republic of Finland (Agents:                                     of 15 July 1999
Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä) and Kingdom of Sweden
(Agent: Anders Kruse) — application for suspension of the
operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of                       in Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the
17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the                                      European Communities
authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or
for other interim measures — the President of the Court of                         (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials)
First Instance made an order on 30 June 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (1999/C 281/33)
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
                           INSTANCE                                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi
                                                                         Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension,
                                                                         first, of the decision of the selection board in competition
                           of July 1999                                  COM/A/10/98 to exclude the applicant from the tests sub-
                                                                         sequent to the pre-selection tests and, second, of all of the
in Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper v European Parlia-                    steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure
                               ment                                      relating to that competition — the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance made an order on 15 July 1999, the operative
(Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Urgency —                    part of which is as follows:
                               None)
                                                                         1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                        (1999/C 281/32)
                                                                         2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by Eric


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others

text:
18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


title: Case C-462/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Verners Pudāns v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Direct support schemes — Article 29(1) — Obligation to make payments in full to the beneficiaries — Income tax)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Verners Pudāns v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-462/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Direct support schemes - Article 29(1) - Obligation to make payments in full to the beneficiaries - Income tax))
   (2016/C 279/11)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verners Pudāns

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Operative part

   Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015