title: Case C-290/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-96/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/17

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-96/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-290/13 P)
   2013/C 252/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other party: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-96/10; and

               —

               annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene Oil (Paste) as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), or

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and

               —

               order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

               —

               in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

               —

               the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;

               —

               Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and

               —

               that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

         For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-96/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, p. 1


title: Joined Cases T-15/12 and T-16/12: Order of the General Court of 19 February 2013 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy scheme for the acquisition of natural areas for environmental protection — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/26

         Order of the General Court of 19 February 2013 — Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-15/12 and T-16/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Subsidy scheme for the acquisition of natural areas for environmental protection - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 108/67
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Provincie Groningen (Netherlands) and the eleven other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex to the order (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers) (Case T-15/12); Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands) and the twelve other applicants whose names are mentioned in the annex to the order (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland) (Case T-16/12)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and P.J. Loewenthal, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and A. Wiedmann, Agents); and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and M. Bulterman, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission decision C(2011) 4945 final of 13 July 2011 concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands in the form of subsidies applicable to the acquisition of land for environmental protection (N 308/2010 — Netherlands).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Landgoed Welna and Heerlijkheid Mariënwaerdt.

               3.

               Provincie Groningen, Provincie Friesland, Provincie Drenthe, Provincie Overijssel, Provincie Gelderland, Provincie Flevoland, Provincie Utrecht, Provincie Noord-Holland, Provincie Zuid-Holland, Provincie Zeeland, Provincie Noord-Brabant, Provincie Limburg, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Landschap Overijssel, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap, Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear their own costs.

               5.

               Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Landgoed Welna and Heerlijkheid Mariënwaerdt, applicants for leave to intervene, shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-113/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aid for the production of olive oil — Aid for arable crop areas)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2010 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-113/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the production of olive oil - Aid for arable crop areas)
   2011/C 13/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil and arable crop sectors

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


20150731036616942015/C 270/323552011TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150601262611Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2610120150601EN0032261261Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
   (Case T-355/11) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)’2015/C 270/32Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by M. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, subsequently by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva, G. Locurto and M. Lucchini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 749/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Jorge Segovia Bonet and IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

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

            2.

            The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-71/06: Action brought on  7 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/12

         Action brought on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-71/06)
   (2006/C 74/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Visaggio, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/85/EC (1) of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC (2) and Decisions 89/531/EEC (3) and 91/665/EEC (4) and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (5) or rather by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93(1) of Directive 2003/85/EC;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for the implementation of the directive expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 306 of 22.11.2003, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 315 of 26.11.1985, p. 11

      (3)  OJ L 279 of 28.9.1989, p. 32

      (4)  OJ L 368 of 31.12.1991, p. 19

      (5)  OJ L 268 of 14.9.1992, p. 1


title: Case F-103/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2008 — Pickering v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Remuneration — Correction coefficients — Transfer of part of remuneration out of the country of employment — Pensions — Default proceedings — Temporal application of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure — Pay slips — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment of officials — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations, acquired rights, principle of legal certainty and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2008 — Pickering v Commission
   (Case F-103/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Remuneration - Correction coefficients - Transfer of part of remuneration out of the country of employment - Pensions - Default proceedings - Temporal application of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure - Pay slips - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment of officials - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations, acquired rights, principle of legal certainty and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2008/C 142/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Stephen Pickering (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's pay slips for the months of December 2004 and January and February 2005, and of all subsequent pay slips, in so far as they apply the allegedly unlawful provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, concerning the transfer of part of remuneration to the official's country of origin (formerly Case T-393/05).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006, p. 27 (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-393/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).


No C 357 / 14      EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                     26 . 11 . 96
                                                             III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                   COUNCIL
                                               COMMISSION
                                 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                   ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
                           COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
                               Notice concerning the organization of open competitions
                                                      (96/C 357 /07 )
            The General Secretariat of the Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament,
            the Court of Justice, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
             are organizing the following open competition :
             EUR/C/ 120 : Secretaries of Greek mother tongue (').
            The deadline for submitting applications is 22 January 1997 .
             ( ) OJ No C 357 A, 26. 11 . 1996 (Greek edition).


title: Case T-596/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)
   (Case T-596/13)
   2014/C 39/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emsibeth SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Arpaia, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community mark sought: the figurative mark ‘Nael’, for goods in class 3 — application for registration No 9726894

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘Mc Neal’, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the application for registration of the mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09.


title: Case T-396/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultrafilter international — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Abuse of rights)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/71

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)
   (Case T-396/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultrafilter international - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Abuse of rights)
   2013/C 225/156
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz and M. Teworte-Vey, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between ultra air GmbH and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 May 2011 (Case R 374/2010-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by ultra air GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-321/13: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-321/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/48
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-369/00: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission (State aid — Land sale price — Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market — Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/25

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Département du Loiret v Commission
   (Case T-369/00) (1)

   (State aid - Land sale price - Decision ordering the recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Agreement by which all the assets of the recipient of the aid were transferred to the authorities which granted the aid - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 108/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Loiret (France) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and J. Flett, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The Département du Loiret shall pay the costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.


title: Case C-227/12: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, TUI Airlines Nederland BV, trading under the name ArkeFly v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-227/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/114
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case T-598/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (LINEASUL)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/21

         Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Biodes v OHIM — Manasul International (LINEASUL)
   (Case T-598/10)
   2011/C 80/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Biodes, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manasul International, SL (Ponferrada, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in Case R 1520/2009-1;

               —

               order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Biodes, SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘LINEASUL’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manasul International, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘MANASUL’ and ‘MANASUL ORO’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 31.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark applied for refused.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no similarity between the marks at issue and the Board of Appeal failed to examine the proof of use of the earlier marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-55/03: Action brought on 11 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 83/11
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by the Commission                        Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy
                                  Spain                                                              of Luxembourg
                            (Case C-55/03)                                                           (Case C-56/03)
                            (2003/C 83/17)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/18)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Febru-               An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Marina                     ties on 12 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Valverde López, a member of the auxiliary staff of its Legal                Communities, represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent,
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                            the Court should:
—      Declare that, by failing to implement Council Directives
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 ( 1) and 92/51/EEC of
                                                                            —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
       18 June 1992 (2) on a second general system for the
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       recognition of professional education and training to
                                                                                comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
       supplement Directive 89/48/EEC in connection with the
                                                                                ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
       profession of air traffic controller in the civil sector, the
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1), or in any event by failing to
       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand-
       the EC Treaty;
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      under Article 19 of that directive;
                                                                            —     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC apply, not to
diplomas awarded on completion of academic education but                    Pleas in law and main arguments
rather to diplomas awarded on completion of education and
training at the end of which the holder of such a diploma is
                                                                            The period within which the directive had to be transposed
fully qualified to practise a given profession. In consequence,
                                                                            expired on 28 October 2001.
it is not the diploma giving access to training as an air traffic
controller which must be recognised in accordance with those
directives, but the final diploma giving access to the profession           (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.
of air traffic controller in the civil sector. Having regard to the
provisions of Royal Decree 3/1998, the Commission considers
that that profession is regulated in Spain for the purposes of
Article 1(d) of Directive 89/48/EEC and the settled case-law of
the Court of Justice.
The Member States are required to transpose directives into
their national legal order. The fact that there exists a law                Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
approved by Eurocontrol does not relieve Spain of that                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
obligation.
                                                                                (Case C-57/03)
( 1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
     system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                                (2003/C 83/19)
     on completion of professional education and training of at least
     three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 24 January 1989, p. 16).
( 2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
     system for the recognition of professional education and training
     to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 of 24 July 1992,           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     p. 25).                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.


title: Case F-38/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 — Liotti v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2006 appraisal procedure — Appraisal rules applied by the reporting officers)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 — Liotti v Commission
   (Case F-38/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2006 appraisal procedure - Appraisal rules applied by the reporting officers)
   (2009/C 82/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report in respect of 2006.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Mr Liotti's career development report in respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26.


title: Case C-280/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9, 168, 169 and 178 — Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity — Purchase of land by the partners of a partnership — Invoices drawn up prior to registration of the partnership seeking the deduction)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-280/10) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9, 168, 169 and 178 - Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity - Purchase of land by the partners of a partnership - Invoices drawn up prior to registration of the partnership seeking the deduction)
   2012/C 118/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz spółka jawna

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax paid in respect of transactions conducted with a view to carrying out planned economic activity but prior to registration of a partnership — Purchase of land by the future partners

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 9, 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits neither partners nor their partnership to exercise the right to deduct input VAT on investment costs incurred by those partners, before the creation and registration of the partnership, for the purposes of and with the view to its economic activity.

               2.

               Articles 168 and 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the input VAT paid cannot be deducted by a partnership when the invoice, drawn up before the registration and identification of the partnership for the purposes of value added tax, was issued in the name of the partners of that partnership.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-167/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum payment and penalty payment)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-167/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum payment and penalty payment))
   (2015/C 406/04)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               If the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 3 6 40  000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 10 million;

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


C 144/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-425/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-369/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/53)                                                   (2002/C 144/56)
By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-425/99 (Referral for a preliminary      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Akhtar Seyed Abbasy v           register of Case C-369/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank                     Council of the European Union.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-387/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-29/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/54)                                                   (2002/C 144/57)
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-29/00: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-387/00: European Parliament v
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-321/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-393/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/55)                                                   (2002/C 144/58)
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-321/00: Federal Republic of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                   from the register of Case C-393/00: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-308/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Commission v Nanopoulos (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Non-contractual liability — Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations — Damages claim to be submitted within a reasonable time — Time-limit for reply — Institution of disciplinary proceedings — Criterion requiring a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ — Personal data leaked to the press — Failure to assign tasks corresponding to an official’s grade — Amount of damages)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Commission v Nanopoulos
   (Case T-308/10) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Non-contractual liability - Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations - Damages claim to be submitted within a reasonable time - Time-limit for reply - Institution of disciplinary proceedings - Criterion requiring a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ - Personal data leaked to the press - Failure to assign tasks corresponding to an official’s grade - Amount of damages)
   2012/C 258/29
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking, first, to have that judgment set aside and, second, if the judgment is to be upheld, to have the exact amount of damages set.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Nanopoulos in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case T-114/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation — Lateness — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-114/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation - Lateness - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2009/C 205/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-301/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Decision 96/666/EC — Compensation for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Regional economic development)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                      of 30 September 2003
                                                                             (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
in Case C-301/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Decision 96/666/EC — Compensation for the
economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State —
                Regional economic development)                                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 October 2003
                         (2003/C 275/01)
                                                                             in Case C-176/99 P: ARBED SA v Commission of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       producers of beams — Notification of the statement of
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                          objections)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/02)
In Case C-301/96, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                                       (Language of the case: French)
D. Plessing and T. Oppermann) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by M. Núñez                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Müller), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and                                       in the European Court Reports)
Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins): Application for partial
annulment of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of 26 June
1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the Volkswagen                     In Case C-176/99 P, ARBED SA established in Luxembourg
Group in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ 1996 L 308, p. 46), the
                                                                             (Luxembourg), (represented by A. Vandencasteele): Appeal
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
                                                                             against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmer-                     European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
mans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,                       sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED v
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
                                                                             Commission [1999] ECR II-303, seeking to have that judgment
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
                                                                             set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
on 30 September 2003, in which it:                                           assisted by J.-Y. Art), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                             Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-
1.   Dismisses the application;
                                                                             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
                                                                             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
2.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;                2003, in which it:


title: Case T-44/10 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/43

         Appeal brought on 3 February 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-44/10 P)
   2010/C 80/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 25 November 2009. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action brought against the Commission’s refusal to assume responsibility for 100 % of the appellant’s medical expenses.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle that reasons must be given for a decision of an institution of the European Union, the concept of additional reasoning for a decision and the legal principles relating to the taking and assessment of evidence.
   The appellant also alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the concepts of a challengeable act and a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision.


title: Case T-322/13: Action brought on 14 June 2013 — Tsujimoto/OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/31

         Action brought on 14 June 2013 — Tsujimoto/OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)
   (Case T-322/13)
   2013/C 252/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japon) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 March 2013 (Case R 1364/2012-2);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 8 701 286

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(2) and 8(5) of CTMR.


title: Case T-752/14: Action brought on 12 November 2014  — Comber v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/39

         Action brought on 12 November 2014 — Comber v Commission
   (Case T-752/14)
   (2015/C 034/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Comber SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Heel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 16 July 2014 (REM 05/2013) on the refusal of the application for remission of import duties amounting to EUR 4 61  415,12;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the post-clearance customs duties for the import of linen fabric from Latvia in the years 1999 to 2002 must be remitted in accordance with Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) due to the presence of special circumstances. The applicant cites as special circumstances serious breaches of obligations by the Latvian customs authorities, serious breaches of obligations by the European Commission/OLAF and serious misconduct of the German customs authorities. In the applicant’s view, those circumstances cannot be attributed to obvious negligence on its part.


title: Case C-486/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez
   (Case C-486/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/41
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-57/03: Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provençale d'Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 112/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 4 March 2003                                    —      annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office of 5 December 2002 in Case No R 1072/2000-2;
in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to
the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior                      Pleas in law and main arguments
administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the
                       action for annulment)                                Applicants for Com-            F. Dann and A. Backer
                                                                            munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 112/62)
                                                                            Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOOLIGAN’ —
                                                                            sought:                        application No 7179 filed in
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
In Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot, residing in L’Haye                 sign cited in the oppo-
les Roses (France), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an             sition proceedings:
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart                    Mark or sign cited in          The French word mark and the
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the                  opposition:                    international word mark ‘OLLY
rejection of the applicant’s application to take part in the tests                                         GAN’, registered, inter alia, for
for Internal Competition COM/R/502211/01 — the Court of                                                    goods in Class 25 (clothing)
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges;                       Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 March 2003, the                  sition Division:               registration
operative part of of which is as follows:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                        Opposition Division
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
                                                                                the legal concept of likelihood of
                                                                                confusion.
( 1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.02.
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provença-                     Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
le d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for                      Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Com-
            Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        mission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-57/03)                                                             (Case T-68/03)
                          (2003/C 112/63)                                                            (2003/C 112/64)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                              (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Société                         European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
Provençale d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG), established in                     Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways), whose seat is at 96-100
Marseilles, France, represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with                Leoforos Singrou, 11741 Athens, Greece, represented by Denis
an address for service in Luxembourg. F. Dann and A. Backer,                Waelbroek, Efthimios Bourtzalas, Julian Ellison, Matthew Hall,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were also parties to the proceed-               Andreas Kalogeropoulos, Kharis Tagaras and Aristidis Khiote-
ings before the Board of Appeal.                                            lis, lawyers.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 16 December 1997 in Case T-19/97: Claude Richter v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Leave on personal grounds - Reinstatement - Place of employment - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Principle of sound administration)

text:
7.2.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                   individual decision, can the public law body be held
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1997 in                 liable as well as the Member State?
the case of Salomone Haim against Kassenzahnärztliche
                    Vereinigung Nordrhein                           2. If so: Where a national official has either applied
                                                                        conflicting national law against Community law, or
                       (Case C-424/97)
                                                                        has applied national law in a manner that does not
                         (98/C 41/33)                                   comply with Community law, is there a serious breach
                                                                        of Community law simply on the ground that the
                                                                        official had no discretion in making his decision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              3. Where a national of another Member State has been
European Communities by order of the Landgericht                        recognised in the host Member State as having the
(Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 8 December 1997,                         status of a dental practitioner but does not hold a
received at the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for                 diploma mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686/
a preliminary ruling in the case of Salomone Haim v.                    EEC (1), may the competent authorities of the host
Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein on the                        Member State make the admission of such person to
following questions:                                                    treat patients affiliated to social security schemes
                                                                        conditional upon his having the knowledge of
                                                                        languages which he needs for the exercise of his
1. If an official of a legally independent public law body              professional activity in the host State?
     of a Member State breaches primary Community law
     when applying national law in the context of an                (1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                    of 16 December 1997
in Case T-19/97: Claude Richter v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Leave on personal grounds Ð Reinstatement
Ð Place of employment Ð Duty to have regard to the
 welfare of officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         (98/C 41/34)
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
                (Language of the case: French)                      in Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
                                                                     Association (EFMA) v. Council of the European Union (1)
In Case T-19/97: Claude Richter, an official of the                  (Anti-dumping duties Ð Injury Ð Right to a fair hearing)
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                                (98/C 41/35)
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
application for compensation for the harm which the
applicant considered to have suffered as a result of the            In Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
fact that the Commission did not reinstate him, at the end          Association (EFMA), established in Zurich (Switzerland),
of his leave on personal grounds, to the first vacant post          represented initially by Dominique Voillemot and Hubert
in his category and grade, in respect of which he was in            de Broca and subsequently by Dominique Voillemot and
possession of the requisite abilities Ð the Court of First          Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave       Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
a judgment on 16 December 1997, the operative part of               Yves CreÂtien, Antonio Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen
which is as follows:                                                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) Ð
                                                                    application for annulment of Article 1 of Council
1. The application is dismissed.                                    Regulation (EC) No 477/95 of 16 January 1995 amending


title: Case T-305/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014  — Unicid v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/28

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Unicid v Commission
   (Case T-305/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 253/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union nationale interprofessionnelle cidricole (Unicid) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-89/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/23

         Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-89/09)
   2009/C 113/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by limiting to a maximum of one-quarter the shares and therefore the voting rights in a Société d’Exercice Libéral à Responsabilité Limitée (limited liability company formed by persons carrying on a professional activity) operating medical laboratories which can be held by persons who are not biologists and by prohibiting holdings of capital in more than two companies established in order jointly to operate one or more medical laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits two pleas in law in support of its action, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.
   By its first plea, the applicant maintains that, by limiting to a maximum of 25% of the authorised capital of Sociétés d’Exercice Libéral à Responsabilité Limitée operating medical laboratories the shares held by shareholders not carrying on a professional activity, the national legislation restricts unduly the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. The objective of protection of public health, referred to by the defendant as a justification, could be achieved by measures less restrictive than those at issue in the present case. The Commission claims in that regard that, while it seems justified to require that medical analyses be carried out by competent staff with the appropriate professional qualifications, to require such qualifications for the mere holding of shares in or right to operate medical laboratories seems on the other hand disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued.
   By its second plea in law, the Commission criticises the general prohibition on persons not carrying on a professional activity from holding capital in more than two companies established in order jointly to operate one or more medical laboratories. The objective put forward by the defendant of maintaining the decision-making power and the financial independence of the persons carrying out professional activities in the sector and the need to ensure a uniform distribution of the laboratories throughout the national territory do not justify the restrictive national measures.


title: Case T-12/08 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — M v EMA (Appeal — Civil service — Review of the judgment of the General Court — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — M v EMA
   (Case T-12/08 P-RENV-RX) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Review of the judgment of the General Court - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given)
   2010/C 234/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: M (Browbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07 M v EMEA (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Refers the case back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the claim for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by Mr M;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
   (Case T-200/17)
   (2017/C 178/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2016 by which the applicant was refused a second renewal of her contract and against the rejection by the Executive Director of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 of the applicant’s complaint of 1 September 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the breach of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union as a result of the application of the defendant’s internal rules which equate officials and temporary agents with indefinite contracts. Moreover, by differentiating between temporary agents with fixed-term contracts and temporary agents with contracts concluded for an indefinite period, the defendant infringes the Staff Regulations and, in the case at hand, the principle of equal treatment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the lack of reasoning or illegal, contradictory and insufficient reasoning.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the duty of care owed to staff.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on the grounds of age as a result of the application by the defendant of a staff policy aimed at reducing the average age of the staff population.


title: Case T-161/12: Action brought on 11 April 2012 — Free v OHIM — Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/22

         Action brought on 11 April 2012 — Free v OHIM — Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge)
   (Case T-161/12)
   2012/C 194/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Free (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Conradi + Kaiser GmbH (Kleinmaischeid, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2012 in Case R 437/2011-2;

               —

               rule that the application for registration of the disputed mark should be rejected in its entirety on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, both before the Court and before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘FreeLounge’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 — application for registration No 8442832

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French figurative mark No 99785839 ‘free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38; the French word mark No 1734391 ‘FREE’ for services in Class 38; the company name ‘FREE’ used in the course of trade in France; the domain name ‘FREE.FR’ used in the course of trade

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application for the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-339/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /17
Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                            Removal from the register of C-145/95 ( J )
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                              ( 97/C 331/34 )
                              Luxembourg
                             Case C-339/97 )                            By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 97/C 331/33 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/95 ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ( Rome
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     District Magistrates ' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
Communities on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                      Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur                    Commune di Naviglio.
Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez                 (>) OJ C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 146/95 ( 1 )
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,        regulations                                  ( 97/C 331 /35 )
       and administrative provisions necessary         to comply
       with Commission Directive 94/1 5/EC of 15       April 1994       By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
       adapting to technical progress for the           first time      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
       Council    Directive      90/220/EEC  on   the    deliberate     from the register of Case C-146/95 ( Reference for a
       release into the environment of genetically modified             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       organisms (*) and Commission Directive 94/5 1/EC of              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto (Rome
       7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                   District Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
       Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
                                                                        Commune di Torino .
       genetically modified micro-organisms (2 ), the Grand
       Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives;                              H OJ C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
       costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-3 17/95 H
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /36 )
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 By order of 8 August 1997, the President of the Court of
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
transposition expired on 30 June 1994 (Directive 94/15/                 from the register of Case C-3 17/95 ( Reference for a
EC ) and 30 April 1995 ( Directive 94/51 /EC ).                         preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
                                                                        ( Council of State, Greece )): Canadane Cheese Trading
(') OJ L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .                                  AMBA, Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 )
( 2 ) OJ L297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p. 29 .                                 Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social
( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                               Security, and (4 ) Agriculture.
                                                                        (') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Removal from the register of C-34/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


C 144/32              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-282/01 (1)                register of Case C-288/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                     the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Finanzgericht): Ulf Thomsen v
                       (2002/C 144/66)                               Finanzamt Flensburg.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 21 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-282/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-350/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/69)
                                                                     By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-287/01 (1)                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-350/01: Commission of the European
                       (2002/C 144/67)                               Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 11 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-287/01: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-409/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/70)
       Removal from the register of Case C-288/01 (1)                By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                       (2002/C 144/68)                               from the register of Case C-409/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di L’Aquila): Rolando
                                                                     Salusest v Giovanni Petrucci.
By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-351/05: Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Estonia

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/12

         Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-351/05)
   (2005/C 281/23)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   An action against the Republic of Estonia was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and E. Randvere, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to comply with the obligation under Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 (1) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC to notify all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive into national law, and by notifying only in part the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose it into national law, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176 of 15.7.2003, p. 57.