title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-102/97 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 87/101/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Transposition of the directive)

text:
4.12.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 352/3
2. The demands of an investigation conducted by the national                1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
     authorities may, in the absence of any deception or negligence on          give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration,
     the part of the person liable, and where that person has not been          notwithstanding that technical, economic and organisational
     informed that the investigation is being carried out, constitute a         constraints so allowed, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     special situation within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Council           failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) 1430/79 of 3 July 1979 on the repayment                   Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of
     or remission of import or export duties, as amended by Council             waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of
     Regulation (EEC) No 3069/86 of 7 October 1986, where the                   22 December 1986;
     fact that the national authorities have, in the interests of the
     investigation, deliberately allowed offences or irregularities to be   2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
     committed, thus causing the principal to incur a customs debt,
     places the principal in an exceptional situation in comparison
     with other operators engaged in the same business.                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
3. Commission Decision C(98) 372 of 18 February 1998 is
     invalid.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-217/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                        of 9 September 1999                                             ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
in Case C-102/97 Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                            90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the
                                                                            environment — Definition of public authorities — Exclusion
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                of the courts, criminal prosecution authorities and disciplin-
87/101/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Transposition of                      ary authorities — Partial communication of information —
                              the directive)                                Exclusion of the right to information during administrative
                                                                            proceedings — Amount of charges and mode of collecting
                            (1999/C 352/05)                                                                them)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                   (1999/C 352/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: German)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-102/97: Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany                                         in the European Court Reports)
(Agents: initially Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke, and, sub-
sequently, Ernst Röder and Claus-Dieter Quassowski) —
Application for a declaration that, by failing to give priority to          In Case C-217/97: Commission of the European Communities
the recycling, rather than the thermal processing, of waste oils,           (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
notwithstanding that such processing is not precluded by any                (Agent: Ernst Röder, assisted by Dieter Sellner) — application
economic, technical or organisational constraints, the Federal              for a declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975                90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to
on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as                    information on the environment (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56), in
amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December                      particular Article 2(b), Article 3(2), third indent of the first
1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     subparagraph and second subparagraph, and Article 5 thereof
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                    — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and               President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen (Rappor-
M. Wathelet, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louter-              teur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
given a judgment on 9 September 1999, in which it:                          9 September 1999, in which it held:


title: Case F-60/11: Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/35

         Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-60/11)
   2011/C 211/71
   Language of the case: english

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the ECB's decision confirming its previous decision to suspend the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the ECB dated 23 November 2010 confirming the decision of 4 August 2010 to suspend the Appellant and, if necessary, of the decision of 15 March 2011 rejecting the special appeal;

               —

               as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the Appellant in his function with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

               —

               in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs.


title: Case C-459/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria)) — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz (Community Customs Code — Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 — Incurrence of a customs debt — Unlawful introduction of goods — Seizure and confiscation — Extinction of the customs debt — Moment at which seizure must take place)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Austria)) — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz
   (Case C-459/07) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Unlawful introduction of goods - Seizure and confiscation - Extinction of the customs debt - Moment at which seizure must take place)
   2009/C 141/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Veli Elshani

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Linz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz — Interpretation of Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code — Extinction of the customs debt linked to the seizure of goods upon their unlawful introduction — Seizure of goods in the Member State of destination — Removal of the goods — Moment at which the debt is extinguished

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 202 and point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to lead to the extinction of the customs debt, the seizure of goods unlawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community must take place before those goods go beyond the first customs office situated inside that territory.

               2.

               There is no need to reply to the second question.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-663/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 27 December 2011 — SC Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 27 December 2011 — SC Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
   (Case C-663/11)
   2012/C 89/05
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Scandic Distilleries SA

      Respondent: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the refusal of the Romanian tax authorities to grant a request for reimbursement of excise duty constitute an infringement of European Union law (Articles 7 and 22 of Directive 92/12/EEC, (1) and the preamble thereto) in the case where:

                           (a)

                           the trader requesting reimbursement of excise duty furnished proof that all the technical conditions laid down in Romanian law governing the admissibility of requests for reimbursement were satisfied, and in particular those relating to: (i) proof of payment of excise duty in Romania; and (ii) proof that the products subject to excise duty were dispatched to another Member State;

                           (b)

                           according to the requirements of Romanian tax law (Article 1926 of the Tax Code, Paragraph 184 of the implementing provisions referred to in Government Decision No 44/2004, and Annex 11 to Title VII of the Tax Code), certain documents which had to accompany the request for reimbursement could be furnished only after the products subject to excise duty had been delivered in another Member State;

                           (c)

                           Romanian tax law (Article 184(4) of the implementing provisions, which refers to Article 135 of the Code of Tax Procedure) provides for a general period of five years for each request for refund/reimbursement?

               2.

               Must Article 22([2])(a) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that failure by a trader to request reimbursement of excise duty in the Member State in which that excise duty was paid, before the products subject to excise duty were delivered in the other Member State where the products are intended for consumption, entails forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement of the excise duty paid?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does the decision on the forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement of excise duty, which involves double taxation of the same products subject to excise duty (in the Member State in which the products subject to excise duty are initially released for consumption and in the Member State in which the products are intended for consumption), comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, can the extremely brief period between the date of payment of the excise duty on the products released for consumption in one Member State and the date of dispatch of the products subject to excise duty to another Member State in which they are intended for consumption be regarded as complying with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness? Is it relevant, in that regard, that the general period during which the refund/reimbursement of a tax, duty or charge can be requested in the Member State in question is significantly longer?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).


title: Case T-520/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark RACE GTP — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP)
   (Case T-520/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark RACE GTP - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: bd breyton-design GmbH (Stockach, Germany) (represented by: T Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1230/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign RACE GTP as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders bd breyton-design GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-402/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schlyter v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Detailed opinion of the Commission concerning a draft Order relating to the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances, notified by the French authorities to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC — Refusal of access)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schlyter v Commission
   (Case T-402/12) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Detailed opinion of the Commission concerning a draft Order relating to the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances, notified by the French authorities to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC - Refusal of access))
   (2015/C 190/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carl Schlyter (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, A. Tokár and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, C. Stege, S. Johannesson and H. Karlsson, and subsequently by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: B. Beaupère-Manokha, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 27 June 2012 refusing, during the standstill period, access to its detailed opinion concerning a draft Order relating to the content and submission conditions of the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances (2011/673/F), which had been notified to it by the French authorities pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 June 2012 refusing, during the standstill period, access to its detailed opinion concerning a draft Order relating to the content and submission conditions of the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances (2011/673/F), which had been notified to it by the French authorities pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Carl Schlyter;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/2

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Grand Chamber and the Third and Sixth Chambers as from 19 October 2004
   (2005/C 31/05)
   At its meeting on 19 October 2004, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               Mr Gulmann

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Mr La Pergola

               Mr Levits

               Mr Puissochet

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Schintgen

               Mr Klučka

               Ms Colneric

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr von Bahr

               Mr Ilešič

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Mr Borg Barthet

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Lenaerts

               Mr Juhász

               Mr Schiemann

               Mr Kūris

               Mr Makarczyk

         At its meeting on 19 October 2004, the Court drew up the list, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Third Chamber as follows:

               Mr La Pergola

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Mr Puissochet

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr von Bahr

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr Borg Barthet

         At its meeting on 19 October 2004, the Court drew up the list, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Sixth Chamber as follows:

               Mr La Pergola

               Mr Puissochet

               Mr von Bahr

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Ó Caoimh


title: Case T-601/15: Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/28

         Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-601/15)
   (2015/C 429/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With this application, the applicant seeks an order for the payment by the Commission of the first instalment of the financial contribution granted in implement of the SEABIOPLAS contract and the Grant Agreement, concerning a research and technological development project in the field of ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’, following the offsetting of that amount by the Commission of its own motion by way of recovery of the sums paid to the applicant under the PROTOP contract, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit by OLAF.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies, essentially, on a single plea in law, alleging errors committed by the Commission which prevented the recovery by offsetting claims against sums paid to the applicant by the Commission. The applicant claims, in essence, that the conditions for recovery by offsetting were not met. First, the claim of the Commission against the applicant was neither certain, nor payable. Second, the Commission had not complied with Article 87(2) (recovery by offsetting) and Article 88 (recovery procedure failing voluntary payment) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has no contractual claim against it. In the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that the offsetting is valid, the applicant submits that the refund of the total amount of the grant it received is contrary to the principle of proportionality and amounts to the unjust enrichment of the Commission.


title: Case F-68/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/49

         Action brought on 27 April 2015 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-68/15)
   (2015/C 245/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2009 and the claim for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appraisal report of 4 July 2014 notified to the applicant on 12 July 2014, in so far as it amends the initial report;

               —

               order Frontex to pay the applicant EUR 4  000 by way of damages;

               —

               order Frontex to pay the costs.


title: Case C-646/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari
   (Case C-646/16)
   (2017/C 053/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants on a point of law: Khadija Jafari, Zainab Jafari

      Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it necessary, for the purpose of understanding Articles 2(m), 12 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (‘the Dublin III Regulation’), for other acts, linked to the Dublin III Regulation, to be taken into account, or are those provisions to be interpreted independently of such acts?

               2.

                  In the event that the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation are to be interpreted independently of other acts

                           (a)

                           In the circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, which are characterised by the fact that they fall within a period in which the national authorities of the States principally involved were faced with an unusually large number of people demanding transit through their territory, is the entry into the territory of a Member State, where such entry is de facto tolerated by that Member State and was intended to be solely for the purpose of transit through that Member State and the lodging of an application for international protection in another Member State, to be regarded as a ‘visa’ within the meaning of Article 2(m) and Article 12 of the Dublin III Regulation?
                           If question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative:

                           (b)

                           Must it be assumed, in the light of the fact that entry is de facto tolerated for the purpose of transit, that the ‘visa’ ceased to be valid upon departure from the Member State concerned?

                           (c)

                           Must it be assumed, in the light of the fact that entry is de facto tolerated for the purpose of transit, that the ‘visa’ continues to be valid if departure from the Member State concerned has not yet taken place, or does the ‘visa’ cease to be valid, notwithstanding non-departure, at the point at which an applicant finally abandons his plan to travel to another Member State?

                           (d)

                           Does the applicant’s abandonment of his plan to travel to the Member State which he originally envisaged as being his destination mean that a fraud can be said to have been committed after the ‘visa’ had been issued, within the meaning of Article 12(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, so that the Member State issuing the ‘visa’ is not to be responsible?
                           If question 2(a) is answered in the negative:

                           (e)

                           Is the expression used in Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, ‘has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country’, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the special circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings referred to, an irregular crossing of the external border is to be regarded as not having taken place?

               3.

                  In the event that the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation are to be interpreted taking other acts into account:

                           (a)

                           In assessing whether, for the purposes of Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, there has been an ‘irregular crossing’ of the border, must regard be had in particular to the question whether the entry conditions under the Schengen Borders Code — notably under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders, which is particularly relevant to the cases in the main proceedings, given the timing of the entry — have been fulfilled?
                           If question 3(a) is answered in the negative:

                           (b)

                           Of which provisions of EU law is particular account to be taken when assessing whether there has been an ‘irregular crossing’ of the border for the purposes of Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?
                           If question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:

                           (c)

                           In the circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, which are characterised by the fact that they fall within a period in which the national authorities of the States principally involved were faced with an unusually large number of people demanding transit through their territory, is the entry into the territory of a Member State, where such entry is, without any assessment of the circumstances of individual cases, de facto tolerated by that Member State and was intended to be solely for the purpose of transit through that Member State and the lodging of an application for international protection in another Member State, to be regarded as authorisation to enter within the meaning of Article 5(4)(c) of the Schengen Borders Code?
                           If questions 3(a) and 3(c) are answered in the affirmative:

                           (d)

                           Does authorisation to enter pursuant to Article 5(4)(c) of the Schengen Borders Code mean that an authorisation comparable to a visa within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, and thus a ‘visa’ under Article 2(m) of the Dublin III Regulation, must be deemed to exist, so that, when applying the provisions for establishing the Member State responsible under the Dublin III Regulation, regard must be had also to Article 12 of that regulation?
                           If questions 3(a), 3(c) and 3(d) are answered in the affirmative:

                           (e)

                           Must it be assumed, in the light of the fact that entry is de facto tolerated for the purpose of transit, that the ‘visa’ ceased to be valid upon departure from the Member State concerned?

                           (f)

                           Must it be assumed, in the light of the fact that entry is de facto tolerated for the purpose of transit, that the ‘visa’ continues to be valid if departure from the Member State concerned has not yet taken place, or does the ‘visa’ cease to be valid, notwithstanding non-departure, at the point at which an applicant finally abandons his plan to travel to another Member State?

                           (g)

                           Does the applicant’s abandonment of his plan to travel to the Member State which he originally envisaged as being his destination mean that a fraud can be said to have been committed after the ‘visa’ had been issued, within the meaning of Article 12(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, so that the Member State issuing the ‘visa’ is not to be responsible?
                           If questions 3(a) and 3(c) are answered in the affirmative, but question 3(d) is answered in the negative:

                           (h)

                           Is the expression used in Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, ‘has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country’, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the special circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings referred to, a border crossing which is to be categorised as authorised entry for the purposes of Article 5(4)(c) of the Schengen Borders Code is not to be regarded as an irregular crossing of the external border?

      (1)  OJ L 180, p. 31.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1).


title: Case C-455/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q
   (Case C-455/15 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 23(a) - Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Public policy))
   (2016/C 016/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Varbergs tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P

      Defendant: Q

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2000 in Case T-208/00 R: Jeremías Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas v Council of the European Union and European Parliament (Proceedings for interim relief — Notice of competition — Officials — Admissibility — Urgency — None)

text:
C 355/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.12.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                             INSTANCE                                                                  INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                           of 25 July 2000
                                                                           in Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
in Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH
and Invest Commerce S.à r.l. v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 (Officials — Interlocutory proceedings — Admissibility of
                                                                                the main proceedings)
(Procedure for interim relief — Freeze of funds and ban on                                           (2000/C 355/54)
investment in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
— Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 — Suspension of oper-
         ation until the end of the interim proceedings)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-202/00 R: Mario Costacurta, official of the Com-
                          (2000/C 355/53)                                  mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg, represented by Mr Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr
                                                                           Petit, 74, Val Sainte-Croix, against the Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: German)                         European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) —
                                                                           application for, first, suspension of the decision of the
                                                                           Commission contained in its letter dated 19 July 2000 and,
In Case T-189/00 R: ‘Invest’ Import und Export GmbH,                       secondly, an order of the Court requiring the Commission to
established in Neuss (Germany) and Invest Commerce S.à r.l.,               post the applicant to a third country by 1 September 2000 at
established in Alfortville (France), represented by R. Wägen-              the latest — the President of the Court of First Instance made
baur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of which is
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10                   as follows:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European
Communities — application pursuant to Article 105(2) of                    1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
the Rules of Procedure for suspension of the operation of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000                     2.    Costs are reserved.
amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999
concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in
relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (OJ 2000 L 129,
p. 15) in so far as it concerns the applicants — the President
of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 25 July 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
1.    Until the adoption of the order terminating the present
      proceedings for interim relief, operation of Commission Regu-
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
      lation (EC) No 1147/2000 of 29 May 2000 amending
      Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 concern-
      ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the     in Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongol-
      Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is suspended in relation to the       ue and Marc Boixader Rivas v Council of the European
      applicants, to the extent that the Commission is required to                         Union and European Parliament
      grant without delay an authorisation for each import and
      export operation notified to it by the applicants — without          (Proceedings for interim relief — Notice of competition —
      complying with the procedure under Article 9 of Regulation                  Officials — Admissibility — Urgency — None)
      No 1294/1999, as amended by Regulation No 723/2000
      — and the applicants may, notwithstanding Article 3(1) of
      that regulation, have at their disposal the funds necessary for                                (2000/C 355/55)
      each of the corresponding operations.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                           In Case T-208/00 R: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Madrid, represented by
                                                                           D. López Garrido of the Madrid bar, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Choucroun, 84 Grand-
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/25
Rue, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton                 In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
and G. Ramos Ruano) and European Parliament (Agents:
M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) — application for an order                 —    breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, as laid
suspending the operation of the notice of competition intended                    down in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
to establish a shortlist as a recruitment reserve for Spanish-                    No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988 laying down detailed rules
language administrators (EUR/A/159/2000) and for Spanish-                         for the application of decisions granting aid for projects
language assistant administrators (PE/90/A), published in the                     concerning Community measures to improve and adapt
Official Journal of the European Communites on 10 June 2000                       structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in
(OJ C 162 A) — the President of the Court of First Instance                       structural works in coastal waters (2), and of the right of
made an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of                           access to Commission documents
which is as follows:
                                                                             —    breach of the obligation to state reasons
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                             —    infringement of Articles 44(1) and 47 and Part II.B of
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                        Regulation No (EEC) 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                                Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
                                                                                the fisheries and aquaculture sector (3), inasmuch as it
                                                                                lacks a legal basis for describing changes to the project in
                                                                                question as ‘substantial changes’.
                                                                             (1) OJ 1996 C 77, p. 11.
                                                                             (2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
                                                                             (3) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’ S.r.l.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-241/00)
                           (2000/C 355/56)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoran-
European Communities on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’                      ta against the Commission of the European Communities
S.r.l., represented by Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Maz-
zonetto, of the Padua Bar, and Guy Arendt of the Luxembourg                                           (Case T-244/00)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val St Croix.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—      annul Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July
       2000;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the Commission to make good the damage;                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Coillte
                                                                             Teoranta, represented by Guy French, of McCann FitzGerald,
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             Dublin (Ireland) and Paul Gallagher and Niamh Hyland.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             —    annul that part of Commission Decision of 5 July 2000
By the present action, the applicant, who also brought the                        excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
action in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission (1), contests                       incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
the contribution originally granted by Decision C (90) 1923/99                    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent that the decision
of 30 October 1990 in respect of the ‘the modernisation and                       excludes expenditure incurred by Ireland of 4,8 million
development of a breeding area at Rosalina (Veneto)’ project.                     Euros in respect of ineligible afforestation aid; and


title: Case C-161/99: Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
3.7.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/23
The second infringement                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
The Commission maintains that Italy has failed to fulfil its              directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
obligations under Community law because it has failed to                  each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
transpose fully, clearly and unambiguously into national law              required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
the whole substantive content of Article 9 of Direc-                      their transposition. The time-limit in the present case expired
tive 79/409/EEC: the national rules provide for derogation in             on 1 Juli 1997 without the Italian Republic having brought
some of the cases referred to in Article 9(1)(a) and (b), but do          into the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
not comply with the conditions and detailed rules laid down               directives referred to in the Commission’s application.
in Article 9(2) or make derogation conditional upon the
investigation of other satisfactory solutions, at least in cases
where derogation is based on reasons connected with air                   (1) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 3.
safety.                                                                   (2) OJ L 125 of 23.5.1996, p. 10.
(1) OJ No L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
                                                                          Travail, Brussels (Fourth Chamber), by judgment of that
                                                                          court of 28 April 1999 in the case of Marthe Defreyn v
                                                                                Sabena SA
                                                                                (Case C-166/99)
Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of                                               (1999/C 188/52)
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Case C-161/99)                                  European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du Travail
                                                                          (Labour Court), Brussels (Fourth Chamber), of 28 April 1999,
                                                                          which was received at the Court Registry on 4 May 1999, for
                         (1999/C 188/51)                                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Marthe Befreyn v Sabena
                                                                          SA on the following questions:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             1. Can the additional pre-retirement payment provided for
Court of Justice on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of the                     by Collective Agreement No 17, rendered compulsory by
European Communities, represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri                      the Royal Decree of 16 January 1975 and provided for in
Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address               the Collective labour Agreement of 23 May 1984 con-
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 cluded within Joint Sub-committee No 315.1, be treated
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          as an allowance payable under an occupational social
                                                                               security scheme to which the Protocol on Article 119 of
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                         the Treaty establishing the European Community applies?
                                                                          2. Are the provisions of Collective Labour Agreement No 17
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                and the Collective Labour Agreement of 23 May 1984
    administrative provisions necessary in order to comply                     concluded within Joint Sub-committee No 315.1 compat-
    with:                                                                      ible with Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EC (1)in that they
                                                                               exclude female workers over the age of 60 from the benefit
    (a) Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996                        of pre-retirement payments which constitute additional
         concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming                 redundancy payments, granted in addition to unemploy-
         of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic                ment benefit, whereas such payments are guaranteed for
         action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Direc-                     male workers until the age of 65?
         tives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC
                                                                          3. If the above two questions are answered in the affirmative,
                                                                               does the application of the Protocol on Article 119 of the
    (b) Council Directive 96/23/EC       (2) of 29 April 1996 on               Treaty preclude the action brought by Mrs Defreyn from
         measures to monitor certain substances and residues                   succeeding, inasmuch as it is founded on breach of
         thereof in live animals and animal products and                       Article 5 of Directive 76/207?
         repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and
         Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC,
                                                                          (1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
or by failing in any event to communicate those provisions,                   implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the           women as regards access to employment, vocational training and
Treaty and the said directives;                                               promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-434/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Minden by order of that Court of 14 November 2002 in the administrative judicial proceedings between Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and the Landrat of the Herford Local Authority

text:
C 44/12                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.2.2003
Action brought on 16 October 2002 by the Commission                       received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2002, for a
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  preliminary ruling in the administrative judicial proceedings
                                                                          between Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and the Landrat
                                                                          (Principal Officer) of the Herford Local Authority on the
                          (Case C-374/02)
                                                                          following question:
                           (2003/C 44/22)
                                                                          Is the provision in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC (1), by
                                                                          which, with a view to the approximation of the laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 October                products, the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use is
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       prohibited, without prejudice to Article 151 of the Act
represented by M. Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi, acting              concerning the Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
as Agents.                                                                compatible with the superior law of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 194, p. 26.
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on
      the landfill of waste, or in any event by failing to inform
      the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive:
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Essen by order of that Court of 25 November 2002 in
                                                                          proceedings relating to the commercial register between
                                                                          Axel Springer AG and Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH
                                                                                & Co. Essen KG
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-435/02)
Article 249 EC, according to which a directive is to be binding,
                                                                                (2003/C 44/24)
as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
which it is addressed, implies that Member States are required
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. When the time-limit expired, the Italian Republic             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
had not promulgated the provisions necessary to comply with               European Communities by order of the Landgericht Essen
the directive referred to in the Commission’s claims.                     (Regional Court Essen) of 25 November 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 2 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          in proceedings relating to the commercial register between
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Axel Springer AG and Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH &
                                                                          Co. Essen KG on the following questions:
                                                                          (1) Is Directive 90/605/EEC ( 1), in conjunction with
                                                                                Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), compatible with
                                                                                the fundamental Community right of freedom to exercise
                                                                                a trade or profession in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                       (limited partnerships) whose personally liable partner is a
icht Minden by order of that Court of 14 November                               private limited company are obliged to publish their
2002 in the administrative judicial proceedings between                         annual accounts and annual report, in particular without
Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and the Landrat of the                               any restriction being imposed on the group of persons
                     Herford Local Authority                                    entitled to inspect those documents?
                                                                          (2) Is Directive 90/605/EEC, in conjunction with Article 47
                          (Case C-434/02)                                       of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the fundamen-
                                                                                tal Community rights of freedom of the press and radio
                           (2003/C 44/23)                                       in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally
                                                                                liable partner is a private limited company and which are
                                                                                engaged in the press and publishing sector or the radio
                                                                                broadcasting sector are obliged to publish their annual
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          accounts and annual report, in particular without any
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                         restriction being imposed on the group of persons
Minden (Administrative Court Minden) of 14 November 2002,                       entitled to inspect those documents?


title: Case T-410/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to protection of reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Proportionality)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-410/16) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to protection of reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 221/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, then by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Havas and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of the subsequent measures giving effect to that decision, in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Rami Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case T-789/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks MEISSEN, MEISSENER PORZELLAN, HAUS MEISSEN, Meissen and Meissener Porzellan — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character and reputation of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)
   (Case T-789/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks MEISSEN, MEISSENER PORZELLAN, HAUS MEISSEN, Meissen and Meissener Porzellan - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character and reputation of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 270/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2014 (Joined Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen and Meissen Keramik.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-663/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-669/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/25

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-669/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case C-663/16 P)
   (2017/C 053/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard, avocate, K. Van Maldegem, avocat, P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-669/15; and

               —

               rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the admissibility of appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act; and, as appropriate, thereafter to rule on the merits of the case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs related to the objection to admissibility before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the law which led it to err in law in declaring the appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act inadmissible.
   In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

               —

               The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by entering into the substantive merits of the case;

               —

               The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by failing to reserve its judgment on admissibility until it had heard a full exposition of the arguments on the substance of the case.

         Furthermore, by declaring the appellants’ application inadmissible, the General Court infringed the appellants’ rights of defence, their right of access to justice and the duty to state reasons which pertain to fundamental rights of the individuals and thus reflect general principles of EU law.
   For these reasons the appellants claim that the order of the General Court in Case T-669/15 should be set aside and the Court should rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  16 September 2005  in Case C-342/04 P: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Construction products — Harmonised standards and technical regulations — Thermal insulation standards)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/5

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 16 September 2005
   in Case C-342/04 P: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Construction products - Harmonised standards and technical regulations - Thermal insulation standards)
   (2006/C 10/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-342/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 10 August 2004 by Jürgen Schmoldt, residing in Dallgow-Döberitz (Germany), Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V., established in Berlin (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany) (lawyer: H.-P. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Schima assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Schmoldt, the Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. and Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004


title: Case F-18/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Mohamed Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Classification in grade — Local staff appointed as officials — Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 3 of the annex to the CEOS — Promotion exercise for 2008 — Consideration of comparative merits of officials attached to the career stream AST — Procedure based on staff reports 2005/2006 — Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Mohamed Merhzaoui v Council of the European Union
   (Case F-18/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Classification in grade - Local staff appointed as officials - Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 3 of the annex to the CEOS - Promotion exercise for 2008 - Consideration of comparative merits of officials attached to the career stream AST - Procedure based on staff reports 2005/2006 - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)
   2012/C 138/41
   Language of the case:French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mohamed Merhzaoui to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.


title: Case T-19/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Call for tenders to carry out a project relating to the maintenance and linguistic enhancement of the Commission's machine translation system — Source codes for a computer program being marketed — Infringement of copyright — Unauthorised disclosure of know-how — Action for compensation — Non-contractual dispute — Admissibility — Actual and certain damage — Causal link — Flat-rate assessment of the amount of the damage)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-19/07) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Call for tenders to carry out a project relating to the maintenance and linguistic enhancement of the Commission's machine translation system - Source codes for a computer program being marketed - Infringement of copyright - Unauthorised disclosure of know-how - Action for compensation - Non-contractual dispute - Admissibility - Actual and certain damage - Causal link - Flat-rate assessment of the amount of the damage)
   2011/C 38/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France); and Systran Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. De Boissieu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by E. Montaguti and M.F. Benyon, and subsequently by E. Traversa and E. Montaguti, Agents, and A. Berenboom and M. Isgour, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of infringements committed following a call for tenders by the Commission relating to the maintenance and linguistic enhancement of its machine translation system.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Systran SA flat-rate compensation of EUR 12 001 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-39/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Fink (NANA FINK)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/43

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Fink (NANA FINK)
   (Case T-39/16)
   (2016/C 106/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Fink (Basle, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NANA FINK’ — International registration designating the European Union No IR 1 111 651

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 679/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in opposition proceedings B 2 125 543 (International trade mark registration No IR 1 111 651);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-248/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/25

         Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-248/13)
   2013/C 171/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council unlawfully refrained from adopting the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union pursuant to Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. The Commission complains that the Council merely noted that it had no qualified majority to adopt the Commission’s proposal concerning, firstly, the adjustment of salaries and, secondly, the correction coefficients provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations. In the submission of the applicant, the Council has in fact, without any grounds, applied Article 10 of Annex XI, ignoring the Commission and Parliament’s prerogatives. By so doing, the Council has infringed not only the provisions referred to above but also the principle of institutional balance, while committing an misuse of powers.


title: Case C-299/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen
   (Case C-299/11)
   2011/C 269/48
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

      Question referred

   Must Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 5(5) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive, be interpreted as meaning that, upon the occupation of immovable property by a taxable person for exempt purposes, a Member State may charge VAT in a case where:

               —

               that immovable property consists of a (building) work completed on the taxable person’s own land and to his own order by a third person for consideration, and

               —

               that land was previously used by the taxable person for (the same) exempt business purposes, and the taxable person did not previously enjoy a VAT deduction in respect of that same land,

         with the result that (the value of that) same land becomes included in the VAT charge?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


26 . 10 . 96        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 318 / 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                          Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 17 September 1996
                                                          ( 96/C 318/01 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following decisions at its meeting on
             17 September 1996 :
             Appointment of the Presidents of the Chambers
             In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure the Court has appointed for a period of
             one year starting on 7 October 1996 :
             — Mr Sevón as President of the First Chamber,
             — Mr Mancini as President of the Second and Sixth Chambers,
             — Mr Moitinho de Almeida as President of the Third and Fifth Chambers,
             — Mr Murray as President of the Fourth Chamber .
             Composition of the Chambers
             1 . The composition of the Chambers for the same period has been determined as follows :
                 First Chamber
                 Mr Sevón, President of the Chamber,
                 Messrs Edward , Jann and Wathelet, Judges .
                 Second Chamber
                 Mr Mancini, President of the Chamber,
                 Messrs Hirsch and Schintgen, Judges .
                 Third Chamber
                 Mr Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber,
                 Messrs Gulmann and Puissochet, Judges .
                 Fourth Chamber
                 Mr Murray, President of the Chamber,
                 Messrs Kakouris , Kapteyn and Ragnemalm, Judges .
                 Fifth Chamber
                 Mr Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber,
                 Messrs Sevón, Gulmann , Edward, Puissochet, Jann and Wathelet, Judges .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/2          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                26 . 10 . 96
               Sixth Chamber
               Mr Mancini, President of the Chamber,
               Messrs Murray, Kakouris, Kapteyn, Hirsch, Ragnemalm and Schintgen, Judges .
           2 . For each case assigned to them, the First Chamber and the Fourth Chamber ( to which four judges
               are attached ) shall be composed of the President of the Chamber, the Judge-Rapporteur, and a
               third judge designated in turn from a list of the judges in order of seniority . At each general
               meeting the starting point on that list shall be moved down one name .
           3 . For each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the Fifth Chamber and the Sixth Chamber ( to
               each of which seven judges are attached ) the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on the
               basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all the judges of the Chamber, except the
               President, in the following order:
               ( a ) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are attached, in order of
                      seniority;
               ( b ) the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.
               For each case the large Chamber shall be composed of:
               — the President,
               — the Judge-Rapporteur,
               — three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting point on that list shall be moved
                     down one name at each general meeting .
               Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order from the list. However, should the
               President of the large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he is to be replaced preferably by the
               President of the small Chamber .
               If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and determine several cases together
               ( whether or not they are formally joined ) the composition of the bench shall be that determined
               for the first of the cases discussed at a general meeting.
           4 . For the period ending on 6 October 1997 the lists referred to above are as follows :
               First Chamber
               ( President: Mr Sevon )
               Messrs Edward , Jann and Wathelet, Judges .
               Fourth Chamber
               ( President: Mr Murray )
               Messrs Kakouris , Kapteyn and Ragnemalm, Judges .
               Fifth Chamber
               ( President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida )
               Messrs Edward, Jann, Sevón , Wathelet, Gulmann and Puissochet, Judges .
               Sixth Chamber
               ( President: Mr Mancini )
               Messrs Kakouris, Kapteyn , Murray, Ragnemalm , Hirsch and Schintgen , Judges .
           Appointment of the First Advocate-General
           In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure the Court of Justice appointed
           Advocate-General La Pergola as First Advocate-General for a period of one year starting on
           7 October 1996 .


title: Case T-331/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2014 — Sartorius Lab Instruments v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a representation of a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2014 — Sartorius Lab Instruments v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve)
   (Case T-331/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a representation of a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 102/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sartorius Lab Instruments GmbH & CO. KG (Göttingen, Germany), given leave to replace Sartorius Weighing Technology GmbH (represented by: K. Welkerling, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 May 2012 (Case R 1783/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign composed of a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Sartorius Lab Instruments GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, of 22.9.2012.


title: Case F-12/07 AJ: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — O'Connor v Commission (Legal aid)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — O'Connor v Commission
   (Case F-12/07 AJ)
   (Legal aid)
   (2007/C 269/126)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elizabeth O'Connor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. -N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for legal aid.
   Operative part of the order

      The application for legal aid in Case F-12/07 AJ O'Connor v Commission is dismissed.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 May 2013 in Case E-13/12 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community)

text:
               26.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/10

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 May 2013
   in Case E-13/12
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community)
   2013/C 277/08
   In Case E-13/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limits prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 10 of part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 May 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 10 of part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, or to notify ESA thereof, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-52/99: Action brought on 19 February 1999 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.5.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 121/19
In its decision, the defendant contends that, in the event, there         T. Port GmbH & Co. KG was represented by Gert Meier,
was no resettlement within the meaning of Article 6 of                    Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakodenstraße, Cologne (Federal Republic of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations since Mr Miranda, after                Germany).
moving to Rome in November 1995, subsequently changed
his place of residence to Brussels in February 1996.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that he scrupulously observed the pro-
visions governing the resettlement allowance and that he acted
with the utmost good faith and openness. He considers that the            1. order the defendant to compensate the applicant for its
Commission erred in law in interpreting Article 6 of Annex VII                loss suffered as a result of the fact that:
to the Staff Regulations and also failed to meet its obligation to
give a full and correct statement of the reasons for its decision             a) the competent authority caused the quantity provision-
and that, in any event it infringed his legitimate expectations.                   ally approved for the applicant to be reduced by
                                                                                multiplying that quantity by the adjustment coefficient,
He claims that he actually moved his residence, as is confirmed
                                                                                and;
inter alia by the fact that he served a notice evicting his tenants
from his apartment in Rome and by the expenditure incurred
in moving in. According to the applicant, the period for which                b) reduced the quantity for which the applicant had
he stayed at the place to which be moved must be deemed                            applied by the amounts imported in 1994 into Finland,
irrelevant, inter alia for the purpose of assessing whether the                    Austria and Sweden, and;
removal actually took place. On this point, he draws attention
to the conflict between the rules on the resettlement allowance               c) reduced that quantity by the amount judicially deter-
at issue here and the rules on the installation allowance                          mined;
provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.
                                                                          2. order the defendant to make good that reduction by
                                                                              allocation to it corresponding additional licences in the
                                                                              future (compensation in kind);
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by T. Port GmbH                        3. order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
& Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-52/99)
                         (1999/C 121/42)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                similar to those in Cases T-18/99 (Cordis obst und Gemüse
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by T. Port                       Großhandel GmbH v. Commission) and T-30/99 (Bocchi Food
GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg (Federal Republic of Germany).                     Trade International v. Commission).