title: Case C-264/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July 2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan

text:
28.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/15
Thus, the criticisms made by the Court of First Instance                     —       If not, on a proper construction of those directives is the
concerning the ineffectiveness of the legal remedies conferred                       court to uphold the interpretation of its law according to
on individuals by the Community legal order are without any                          which it is authorised to set aside a provision of its
foundation in law.                                                                   national law which prohibits the consumer or the court
                                                                                of its own motion from raising a plea of illegality
                                                                                vitiating the formation or extension of a consumer credit
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001                         agreement after a time-limit which derogates from the
     establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                  general law, in so far as it constitutes an exceptional
     ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d,          restriction on the right of action of the consumer and
     e and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing            undermines the effectiveness of consumer protection?
     vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4).
                                                                             (1 ) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
                                                                                approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                                visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
                                                                                L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48).
                                                                             (2 ) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
                                                                                Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
                                                                                lations and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                          concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).
stance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July
2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain
                             Sachithanathan
                            (Case C-264/02)
                            (2002/C 233/23)                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
                                                                             di Cassazione by order of that Court of 11 April 2002 in
                                                                                the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against Assitalia SpA
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance                                            (Case C-265/02)
de Vienne of 5 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
18 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.                                             (2002/C 233/24)
Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan on the
following questions:
—      On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       EC ( 1) of 22 December 1986 and Council Directive 90/                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
       88/EC ( 2) of 22 February 1990 must the national court                Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 11 April 2002,
       uphold the interpretation of its law which requires lenders           received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2002, for a
       of consumer credit to inform the consumer-borrower in                 preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against
       writing of the current annual percentage charge before                Assitalia SpA on the following question:
       each extension of an agreement for credit renewable in
       instalments at an interest rate that is stipulated to be              ‘Is Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
       variable?                                                             1968, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                             the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
—      On a proper construction of those directives must the                 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
       national court uphold the interpretation of its law                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
       which requires lenders of consumer credit to inform the               Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
       consumer of the clause concerning the variation of that               accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
       annual percentage charge before the extension of that                 Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
       agreement?                                                            accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                             and the Kingdom of Sweden, to be interpreted as subsuming
                                                                             under the expression “matters relating to a contract” the
—      On a proper construction of those directives is the
                                                                             obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under
       national court to uphold the interpretation of its law
                                                                             a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce
       which authorises it to allow, without any time-limit, a
                                                                             in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the financial
       plea of illegality vitiating the formation or extension of a
                                                                             authorities and by way of recourse against the third-party
       consumer credit agreement, such as that arising from
                                                                             debtor who is the owner of the imported goods but was
       failure to state the annual percentage charge, raised by
                                                                             unconnected with the guarantee?’
       the consumer or by the court of its own motion, in a
       dispute arising from an action for payment brought by
       the lender?


title: Case T-516/11: Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/40

         Action brought on 22 September 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
   (Case T-516/11)
   2011/C 347/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington); and MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision dated 12 July 2011 based on the exceptions laid down in Articles 4(2), first indent, and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:

                           —

                           the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;

                           —

                           t he elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and

                           —

                           there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 4(2), first indent, and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in that:

                           —

                           the Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(2), first indent, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;

                           —

                           the elements relied on by the Commission are not credible; and

                           —

                           there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the EIM documents.


title: Case C-409/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 October 2009 — José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade — Mundial SA

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 October 2009 — José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade — Mundial SA
   (Case C-409/09)
   2010/C 11/28
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio

      Respondent: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade — Mundial SA

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Article 1 of the Third Motor Insurance Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a road-traffic accident … Portuguese civil law — and in particular Articles 503(1), 504, 505 and 570 of the Civil Code — may not exclude or limit the right to compensation of a child, himself a victim of the accident, on the sole ground that that child was partly, or even exclusively, responsible for the loss caused?

      (1)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33)


title: Case T-297/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services — Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EASA
   (Case T-297/09) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services - Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 155/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: F. Kämpfe, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, first, for annulment of EASA’s decisions to classify the applicant’s tenders in second or third position according to the cascade mechanism in call for tender EASA.2009.OP.02 relating to ‘ICT Services’ in the field of information technology and communications (OJ 2009/S 22-030588) and, second, for damages for the harm alleged to have been suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 6 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE third in the cascade mechanism for lot 2 (client-server applications, development and maintenance) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

               2.

               Annuls EASA’s decision of 10 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 3 (system, database, and network administration) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

               3.

               Annuls EASA’s decision of 14 July 2009 ranking the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis second in the cascade mechanism for lot 5 (enterprise content management (‘ECM’), enterprise records management, document management implementation, maintenance and support) of call for tenders EASA.2009.OP.02;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to bear 25 % of its own costs and pay 25 % of the costs incurred by EASA, and EASA to bear 75 % of its own costs and pay 75 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-115/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein Westfalen — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Bezirksregierung Amsberg (Directive 85/337/EEC — Environmental impact assessment — Århus Convention — Directive 2003/35/EC — Access to justice — Non-governmental organisations for the protection of the environment)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein Westfalen — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Bezirksregierung Amsberg
   (Case C-115/09) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Århus Convention - Directive 2003/35/EC - Access to justice - Non-governmental organisations for the protection of the environment)
   2011/C 204/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

      Defendant: Bezirksregierung Arnsberg

      Intervening party: Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen GmbH &Co. KG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Interpretation of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Right of non-governmental organisations to appeal against decisions authorising projects which may have significant effects on the environment — Extent of that right — Possibility of relying on all relevant rules or only on rules based directly on Community law, including rules which protect only the public interest and not the rights of individuals — Substantive requirements if only rules based on Community law may be relied on

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, precludes legislation which does not permit a non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection, referred to in Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337, to challenge before the courts, in the context of an action brought against a decision authorising projects ‘likely to have significant effects on the environment’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, the infringement of a rule flowing from EU environment law and intended to protect the environment, on the ground that that rule protects only the interests of the general public and not the interests of individuals.

               2.

               Such an non-governmental organisation can derive, from the final sentence of the third paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, the right to challenge before the courts, in the context of an action brought against a decision authorising projects ‘likely to have significant effects on the environment’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/337, as amended, the infringement of the national rules flowing from Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, although national procedural law does not permit such a challenge, on the ground that the rules relied on protect only the interests of the general public and not the interests of individuals.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-518/07: Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/8

         Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-518/07)
   (2008/C 37/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and C. Ladenburger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC (1), by making the supervisory authorities responsible for the monitoring of data processing within the private sector in the Länder Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thüringen subject to State supervision and thereby incorrectly transposing the requirement of ‘complete independence’ of the data protection supervisory authorities;

               —

               order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The second sentence of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council puts Member States under an obligation to make ‘one or more public authorities’ responsible for monitoring ‘the application … of the provisions adopted by the Member States pursuant to this Directive’, that is to say, of provisions on data protection. The second sentence of Article 28(1) of the directive requires the ‘complete independence’ of the supervisory authorities responsible. By virtue of its wording, the provision provides that the supervisory authorities are not to be subject to influence from other authorities or from outside of the State administration; the rules of the Member States must therefore preclude external influence from being exercised on the decisions of the supervisory authorities and on the implementation thereof. The wording ‘complete’ independence implies not only that there should be no dependence on any party, but also that there should be no dependence in any respect whatsoever.
   It is thus incompatible with the second sentence of Article 28(1) of the directive to make the supervisory authorities which are responsible for the monitoring of data processing in the private sector subject to technical, legal or administrative supervision by the State, as has occurred in all 16 Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany. As the legislation of every Land makes the supervisory authority subject to those three types of supervision in varying combinations, the legislation of every Land constitutes a failure by the Federal Republic of Germany to fulfil the obligation in the second sentence of Article 28(1) of the directive to ensure the ‘complete independence’ of the supervisory authorities. Irrespective of the differences between legal, technical and administrative supervision, all these types of supervision constitute an infringement of the independence required by the directive.
   From a teleological point of view, the Community legislature regarded complete independence as necessary so that the functions which the supervisory authority was intended to have under Article 28 of the Directive could be carried out effectively. Furthermore, light is also shed on the concept of ‘complete independence’ by the legislative background to the provision. The requirement of ‘complete independence’ of the supervisory authorities of the Member States also fits in systematically with the Community acquis existing in the area of data protection law. In addition, Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that compliance with the rules on the protection of personal data must be ‘subject to control by an independent authority’.
   The concept of relative independence advocated by the Federal Republic of Germany, that is to say, the independence of the supervisory authority only from that which is being supervised, cannot in any event be brought into conformity with the unambiguous, comprehensive wording of the directive, which requires ‘complete’ independence. In addition, on that interpretation, the second sentence of Article 28(1) would be completely meaningless. Furthermore, the argument that Article 95 EC, as the relevant legal basis for the directive, and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality suggest a restrictive interpretation of the requirement of ‘complete independence’ must be rejected. The Court has already held that the directive was adopted in accordance with the areas of competence of the European Parliament and of the Council and that a restrictive interpretation of its provisions in non-economic situations is out of the question. Furthermore, the provision which is at issue does not exceed the limits of that which is necessary to achieve the objectives which the directive, in accordance with Article 95 EC and the principle of subsidiarity, pursues.

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case C-177/03: Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 146/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  1.    a.    Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003                               No 1182/71 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for                                period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
                Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron                                     Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
                                                                                with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
                          (Case C-170/03)                                            the same day of the week as the day following the
                                                                                day on which the slaughter took place?
                          (2003/C 146/52)
                                                                               b.    Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               time at which a premium application has been
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                                lodged pursuant to national rules of procedure
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,                            which apply within the national legal system of that
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a                               Member State to comparable, national periods for
preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation by the State                           making applications?
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:
                                                                               c.    If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
1.    Must a car which is made available to a natural person by                      No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
      his employer and is used by him for both business and                          premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
      private purposes be regarded as personal property within                       if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
      the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     expiry of the three-week period and to have been
      No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                          received by the competent authority at such a time
      system of reliefs from customs duty?                                           that it could have communicated the relevant data
                                                                                to the Commission on the same day as would have
2.    Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to                     been the case had the premium application been
      have been in the possession of the person concerned at                         received by the competent authority within that
      least six months before the date on which he gave up his                       period?
      normal place of residence in the country of origin be
      interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who               2.    Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
      has had property made available to him, albeit free of                   so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
      charge, in the context of his employment by the owner                    amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
      of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in                    which the period for making applications is exceeded,
      possession of the property for the purposes of the                       irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
      abovementioned provision?                                                is done?
3.    Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
      during the whole period of six months the person
      concerned had the right to buy the car?                            (1 ) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.
( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap                  Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma               Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
       Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees                                                       ties
                          (Case C-171/03)
                                                                                (Case C-177/03)
                          (2003/C 146/53)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/54)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en                represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
Vlees on the following questions:                                        as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Incorrect transposition of Article 8 of the directive: the
                                                                                national provisions on informing the population or the
                                                                                information to be given in the event of a radiological
—     declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to                      emergency do not make binding provision for indicating
      comply with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Council                        which authorities are responsible for applying the
      Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on                            measures envisaged by the directive.
      informing the general public about health protection
      measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event
      of a radiological emergency (1), the French Republic has             (1 ) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the European
                                                                                Parliament and the Council of the European Union
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 2 of the directive: the
      transposition measures taken concerned only some of the
      situations referred to in that article. The given definition                                  (Case C-178/03)
      of ‘radiological emergency’ was not transposed, and the
      transposition measures do not cover the transport and
      storage of nuclear fuels or radioactive wastes, the manu-                                     (2003/C 146/55)
      facture, use, storage, disposal and transport of radioiso-
      topes for agricultural, industrial, medical and related
      scientific and research purposes, or the use of radioiso-
      topes for power generation in space vehicles. In addition,
      the measures concern only risks connected with instal-               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      lations in French territory and not those connected with             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      installations outside that territory.                                of the European Communities on 24 April 2003 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                           G. zur Hausen, L. Ström and E. Righini, acting as agents, with
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3 of the directive: the           an address for service in Luxembourg.
      transposition measures taken contain no definition of the
      terms ‘significant release of radioactive material’ and
      ‘abnormal levels of radioactivity which are likely to be             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      detrimental to public health’.
                                                                           —     annul Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 (1) of the European
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 5 of the directive: as                  Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003
      already indicated in relation to the transposition of                      concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
      Article 2 of the directive, the transposition measures as                  cals;
      regards informing the population do not cover all
      the installations and all the activities envisaged by the            —     declare that the effects of the Regulation shall remain in
      directive.                                                                 force until the Council has adopted a new regulation;
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: the           —     order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
                                                                                the costs.
      national provisions on informing the population in the
      event of a radiological emergency do not require that the
      population be informed without delay.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 7 of the directive: the
      measures referred to in the directive for informing
      persons likely to be involved in the organisation of
      assistance in the event of a radiological emergency, for             The PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on
      example, are reproduced only in a circular, which does               the Prior Informed Consent procedure for certain Hazardous
      not comply with the requirements for legal certainty                 Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, hereinafter
      imposed by the Court’s case-law.                                     the ‘PIC Convention’.


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-108/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-129/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
                         (2003/C 55/64)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-274/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/67)
                                                                    By order of 5 December 2002 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-120/02 ( 1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-274/02: Commission of the
                         (2003/C 55/65)                             European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-120/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                                Removal from the register of Case C-356/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/68)
        Removal from the register of Case C-129/02 ( 1)             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 55/66)                             from the register of Case C-356/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles): Anne Hennecart
                                                                    v Office National de l’Emploi.
By order of 17 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case F-25/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AG v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Manifest inadmissibility — Action brought out of time — Notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — AG v Parliament
   (Case F-25/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Manifest inadmissibility - Action brought out of time - Notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt)
   2011/C 38/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders AG to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 58.


title: Case T-146/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociaciόn de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices — Formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC — Decision declaring that certain measures did not constitute aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing to bring proceedings — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociaciόn de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission
   (Case T-146/03) (1)

   (State aid - Spanish law providing for measures in favour of the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices - Formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC - Decision declaring that certain measures did not constitute aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings - Duty to state reasons)
   (2006/C 331/70)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Asociaciόn de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autόnoma de Madrid (Madrid, Spain) and Federaciόn Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: originally by J.L. Buendía Sierra, and subsequently by J.R. Vidal Puig)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa, lawyer, and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/293/EC of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices (OJ 2003 L 111, p. 24)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that Article 1 of Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on the measures implemented by Spain in the agricultural sector following the increase in fuel prices is annulled in so far that it finds that the measures to support agricultural cooperatives provided for by Royal Decree Law 10/2000 de medidas urgentes de apoyo a los sectores agrario, pesquero y del transporte (Decree Law on emergency support for agriculture, fisheries and transport) do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-464/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland) — Proceedings brought by Avena Nordic Grain Oy (Agriculture — System of export refunds on agricultural products — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Article 5 — Lodging the export declaration — Transmission by fax)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland) — Proceedings brought by Avena Nordic Grain Oy
   (Case C-464/06) (1)

   (Agriculture - System of export refunds on agricultural products - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Article 5 - Lodging the export declaration - Transmission by fax)
   (2007/C 315/34)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant Avena Nordic Grain Oy
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) — Failure to take account of an export declaration sent by fax, the original not reaching the authorities concerned until after loading operations — Principles of proportionality and good administration
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 90/2001 of 17 January 2001, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent customs authorities from accepting an export declaration for agricultural products which was transmitted by fax, where that transmission took place before loading for export transport, where the declaration transmitted contains all the information necessary to enable physical checks to be carried out on the goods exported and the export operation concerned is not vitiated by any fraud or attempted fraud. Such is the case where the goods covered by the export declaration transmitted by fax have arrived in the third country of destination and the original declaration subsequently transmitted is identical to the declaration transmitted by fax. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-424/08: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 29 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 29 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-424/08) (1)

   2009/C 282/56

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case F-76/09: Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Cusack-Gard'ner v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/36

         Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Cusack-Gard'ner v Commission
   (Case F-76/09)
   2009/C 297/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carolyn Cusack-Gard'ner (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the decision of 22 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request to be able to benefit from a full reimbursement of the costs resulting from the treatment of her illness.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 22 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request;

               —

               declare that Chapter 3 of Title II of the Commission Decision of 2 July 2007 laying down General Implementing Provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses is inapplicable in accordance with Article 241 of the EC Treaty:

                           —

                           insofar as it provides that the cost of providing ‘board and lodging’ for an essential living-in carer is not refundable, and,

                           —

                           in so far as it imposes a limit on the amount of the repayment that may be made for the cost of an essential living-in care;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  15 September 2005  in Case C-112/04 P: Marlines SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Proof of an undertaking's participation in business meetings with an anti-competitive purpose)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/5

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-112/04 P: Marlines SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Proof of an undertaking's participation in business meetings with an anti-competitive purpose)
   (2006/C 10/09)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-112/04 P: Marlines SA (lawyers: D. Papatheofanous and A. Anagnostou) against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and T. Christoforou) — an appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 3 March 2004, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and J.-P Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed as being in part clearly unfounded and in part clearly inadmissible.

               2.

               Marlines SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004


title: Case C-304/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Judeţean Timiş v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Judeţului Timiş (Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Direct support schemes — Conditions for the granting of the complementary national direct payments — Condition not provided for by EU legislation — Condition relating to the absence of debt falling due to the State budget and/or local budget on the date of submission of the application for aid — Not permissible)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/2

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Judeţean Timiş v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Judeţului Timiş
   (Case C-304/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Direct support schemes - Conditions for the granting of the complementary national direct payments - Condition not provided for by EU legislation - Condition relating to the absence of debt falling due to the State budget and/or local budget on the date of submission of the application for aid - Not permissible))
   (2015/C 056/02)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Timişoara

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Judeţean Timiş

      Respondents: Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Judeţului Timiş

      Intervener: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Bucureşti

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 143c of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and Article 132 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid producers who, on the date of submission of the application for aid, have debts falling due to the State budget and/or local budget, where no condition relating to the absence of such debt has been subject to prior authorisation by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 12 December 1995, in the case of The Queen against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming Ltd. (Case C-1/96)

text:
No C 46/12          | EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         17. 2 . 96
which in official sectors in which fewer women than men are               against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
employed in the relevant higher grade post in a career group,             parte: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
where men and women promotion candidates are equally                      Animals and Compassion in World Farming Ltd, on the
qualified ( suitability, competence and professional                      following questions:
performance ) women must be given priority unless reasons
specific to a male candidate predominate ?
                                                                          'Where :
(') OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                                                                          ( a ) all of the Member States have become parties to the
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Animals
                                                                                Kept for Farming Purposes 1976 ('the Convention')
                                                                                and the Convention has been approved by EC Decision
                                                                                78/923/EEC (*) of 18 June 1978 ( OJ L 323 , 1978 ,
                                                                                p. 12 );
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commerce, Nice, by judgment of that court of 1 February
1995 in the case of Societe des Grands Garages                            ( b ) the 1988 Recommendation concerning cattle ('the
Mediterraneens SA and Nissan France against Societe Nice                         Recommendation') has been adopted by the Standing
                      Quest Automobiles                                          Committee established pursuant to the Convention and
                                                                                has    become    effective   under    the   terms    of   the
                        ( Case C-4 10/95 )                                       Convention;
                           ( 96/C 46/22 )
                                                                          (c ) the standards laid down by and pursuant to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           Convention contain stipulations as to the minimum
European Communities by judgment of the 7th Chamber of                           width of veal crates and the composition of veal calves '
the Tribunal de Commerce ( Commercial Court), Nice, of                           diets;
1 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 27 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens SA and Nissan                   ( d ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC ( 2 ) lays down obligatory
France against Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles on the                             minimum standards for the protection of calves which
following question :                                                             are lower than the standards laid down by and pursuant
                                                                                to the Convention in certain respects, including the
Must Regulation No 123/85 (*) of the European Economic                           width of veal crates and the composition of calves '
Community be interpreted as prohibiting professional                             diets;
resellers of vehicles who are not party to an exclusive
distribution network from obtaining supplies from an agent                (e ) the Directive permits Member States to maintain or
for the same manufacturer in another Member State ?
                                                                                apply within their territories stricter provisions for the
                                                                                protection of calves than those laid down in this
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December                       Directive;
    1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to certain
    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
    agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ).                                  ( f) veal calves are exported from a Member State
                                                                                ('Member State A') to certain other Member States
                                                                                ('Member States B') which have implemented and/or
                                                                                complied with the Directive but have not implemented
                                                                                and/or complied with the standards indicated at
                                                                                paragraph (c ) above although Member State A has
                                                                                implemented and complied with those standards;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                 ( g) the export of calves to face rearing contrary to the
 12 December 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the                         Convention is considered to be cruel and immoral by
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: The                       animal welfare organizations and a considerable body
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and                       of public opinion, supported by authoritative scientific
             Compassion in World Farming Ltd.                                    veterinary opinion, in the Member State from which
                            Case C-l /96 )                                       exports occur.'
                            ( 96/C 46/23 )
                                                                           1 . In the circumstances set out above, may Member State A
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty and, in particular, the
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          grounds of public morality and/or public policy and/or
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 December 1995 ,                          the protection of the health or life of animals contained
 which was received at the Court Registry on 2 January                          therein, to justify any restriction in relation to the export
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                        of live calves from Member State A with a view to
 ---pagebreak--- 17. 2 . 96                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 46/13
       avoiding the rearing of those calves in the veal crate            Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Ivrea —
       systems in Member States B ?                                      Sezione Distaccata di Strambino ( Strambino Section) of
                                                                         14 December 1995 , which was received at the Court
2 . If the effect of provisions of the Directive, if valid, would        Registry on 3 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
       be to require the answer 'no ' to be given to question 1 ,        criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo
       are those provisions valid ?                                      Data on the following questions :
( J ) Council Decision 78/923/EEC of 19 June 1978 concerning the
      conclusion of the European Convention for the protection of        1 . May the national laws on employment procurement and
      animals kept for farming purposes (OJ No L 323 , 17. 11 . 1978,          temporary work, which relate to matters of public
      p. 12 ).                                                                 policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying                 workers and of the national economy, be considered as
      down minimum standards for the protection of calves ( OJ No              instances of the exercise of official authority within the
      L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p. 28 ).                                        meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
                                                                               55 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                         2 . May the Community rules relied upon in the parties'
                                                                               defence, in the absence of specific implementing
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Ivrea — Sezione Distaccata di Strambino                       provisions in that area, be considered directly applicable
                                                                               and do they permit any person subject to public or
by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the criminal
                                                                               private law to pursue, without specific supervision or
     proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data
                                                                               authorization, any activity as an intermediary between
                              (Case C-2/96 )                                   supply and demand on the employment market and/or
                               ( 96/C 46/24 )                                  as provider of labour on a temporary basis for third
                                                                               persons, in the event that a Member State is not able
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         through its own administrative apparatus fully to meet
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                   the demand for services on the labour market ?
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
            ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)                      ( OJ, English Special Edition 1959—1962, p. 87) — the
                                                                         Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
                           of 9 January 1996                             Composition ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President,
in Case T-575/93 Casper Koelman v. Commission of the                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi,
                      European Communities (')                           Judges, B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Regulation No 17— Rejection ofa complaint — Statement                  judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:
                     of reasons — National court)
                               ( 96/C 46/25 )
                                                                         1 . dismisses the applicant's claims as inadmissible in so far
                                                                               as they are not for annulment of the Commission 's
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint or for compensation;
In Case T-575/93 : Casper Koelman, resident in Brussels,                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment and
represented by Michel Molitor, Lambert Dupong, Pierre                          for compensation as unfounded;
Feltgen and Lucy Dupong, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Michel Molitor, 14A Rue des Bains, versus Commission of                  3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of
the European Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber),                          the intervener.
supported by Buma, established in Amstelveen
 (Netherlands), represented by Cornelis van Rij and Eduard
A. P. Engels, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for                  t 1 ) OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Guy Harles,
 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt — applications concerning the
 Commission Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint submitted under Article 3 (2 ) of
 Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 : First


title: Case T-309/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/40

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission
   (Case T-309/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/57)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-27/09: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2009 — Stella Kunststofftechnik v OHIM — Stella Pack (Stella) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark Stella — Earlier opposition proceedings based on that mark — Admissibility — Articles 50(1) and 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 51(1) and 56(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/51

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2009 — Stella Kunststofftechnik v OHIM — Stella Pack (Stella)
   (Case T-27/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark Stella - Earlier opposition proceedings based on that mark - Admissibility - Articles 50(1) and 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 51(1) and 56(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 24/89
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stella Kunststofftechnik GmbH (Eltville, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Stella Pack S.A. (Lubartów, Poland) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 693/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Stella Kunststofftechnik GmbH and Stella Pack sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Stella Kunststofftechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97: The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons — Admissibility)

text:
C 149/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.5.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 22 March 2000
                                                                                of 28 March 2000
in Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97: The Coca-Cola
Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)                           in Case T-251/97: T. Port GmbH & Co. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration compatible with the common
market — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons —
                            Admissibility)                                (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market —
                                                                          Bananas —Application for allocation of additional import
                                                                          licences — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 —
                           (2000/C 149/56)                                                      Action for annulment)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                (2000/C 149/57)
In Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97: The Coca-Cola
Company, established in Wilmington, Delaware, United States,
represented by M. Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and N. Levy, of
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in                                 (Language of the Case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Côte
d’Eich, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., established in Atlanta,
Georgia, United States, represented by P. Lasok QC, and M.
Reynolds, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and                   In Case T-251/97: T. Port GmbH & Co., Hamburg, represented
Wales, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for
Chambers of Zeyen, Beghin and Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Baden, 24
Martel v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   Rue Marie-Adélaïde, against Commission of the European
W. Wils), supported by The Virgin Trading Company Ltd,                    Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and H. van Vliet),
established in London, represented by I. Forrester QC, of the             supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta)
Scots Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               and French Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger) — application
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue, and Federal Republic                    for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 9 July
of Germany, (Agents: W.-D. Plessing C.-D. Quassowski) —                   1997 refusing to allocate additional import licences to the
application for annulment of part of the statement of reasons             applicant by way of transitional measures under the common
for Commission Decision 97/540/EC of 22 January 1997                      organization of the market in bananas — the Court of First
declaring a concentration compatible with the common mar-                 Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,
ket and with the functioning of the European Economic                     and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Area Agreement (Case IV/M.794 Coca-Cola/Amalgamated                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in which
Beverages GB) (OJ 1997 L 218, p. 15) — the Court (First                   it:
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March              1. Dismisses the application.
2000, in which it:
                                                                          2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible.                                 Commission.
2. Orders the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
     to pay the costs in Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97 respectively.        3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to pay
                                                                               their own costs.
3. Orders The Virgin Trading Company Ltd and the Federal
     Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.


title: Case C-550/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Poitiers (France) lodged on 25 October 2013  — criminal proceedings against Jean-Paul Grimal

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Poitiers (France) lodged on 25 October 2013 — criminal proceedings against Jean-Paul Grimal
   (Case C-550/13)
   2014/C 159/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Poitiers

      Party to the main proceedings

   Jean-Paul Grimal
   By Order of 19 March 2014, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling to be manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-608/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/23

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
   (Case T-608/14)
   2014/C 361/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 121/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  697

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations


title: Case T-95/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of power — Right to property — Equal treatment)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
   (Case T-95/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 262/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-430/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln): Jutta Johannes v Hartmut Johannes (Officials - Pension rights - Apportionment of pension rights in divorce proceedings)

text:
C 226/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              7.8.1999
(President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of                Euratom) No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (OJ 1982 L 265,
the Fifth Chamber) J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                   p. 1), in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII thereto — the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet Judges, N. Fen-                   Court (First Chamber) composed of: P. Jann President of the
nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999 in which it                 D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
has ruled:                                                                  pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            10 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
     1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on        1. Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council
     mineral oils precludes the collection of a tax of the kind at issue        of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of
     in this case, which is levied on domestic commercial aviation and          Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
     is calculated by reference to data on fuel consumption and                 of the European Communities and instituting special measures
     emissions of hydrocarbons and nitric oxide during an average               temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended
     flight by the type of aircraft used.                                       by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of
                                                                                27 September 1985, in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII
2. The obligation imposed by Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 to              thereto, does not preclude the application, in proceedings between
     exempt from the harmonised excise duty mineral oils supplied for           two former spouses, of national rules of law of the kind contained
     use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private           in Paragraph 1587 et seq. of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch,
     pleasure flying may be relied on by individuals in proceedings             providing for the apportionment of pension rights between
     before national courts in order to contest national rules that are         divorced spouses.
     incompatible with that obligation.
                                                                            2. Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
                                                                                EC) does not preclude the laws of a Member State regulating the
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                     consequences of divorce between an official of the Communities
                                                                                and his former spouse, regard being had to the spouses’
                                                                                nationality as a connecting factor, from causing the official
                                                                                concerned to bear a heavier burden than would be borne by an
                                                                                official of a different nationality in the same situation.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                            of 10 June 1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-430/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Amtsgericht Köln): Jutta Johannes v Hartmut                                                    of 15 June 1999
                              Johannes (1)
                                                                            in Case C-140/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Officials — Pension rights — Apportionment of pension                      the Landesgericht Linz): Walter Rechberger and Renate
                    rights in divorce proceedings)                          Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and Others v Republic of
                                                                                Austria (1)
                            (1999/C 226/06)                                 (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays
                                                                            and package tours — Travel offered at a reduced price to the
                                                                            subscribers of a daily newspaper — Transposition of the
                     (Language of the case: German)                                    directive — Liability of the Member State)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-430/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC (ex Article 177) by the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
court between Jutta Johannes and Hartmut Johannes on the                                         in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC) and of Regulation (EEC, Euratom,                  In Case C-140/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht
down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of               Linz (Regional Court, Linz) for a preliminary ruling in the
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities                    proceedings pending before that court between Walter
and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to                  Rechberger and Renate Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and
officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968               Others and the Republic of Austria — on the interpretation of
(I), p. 30), as amended by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC,                   Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990


title: Case T-394/09: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2010 — General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2010 — General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION)
   (Case T-394/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 55/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: General Bearing Corp. (West Nyack, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier-Beschorner, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 73/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               General Bearing Corp. is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-337/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2009 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/69

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2009 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)
   (Case T-337/07) (1)

   2010/C 24/124

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 269, 10.11.2007.