title: Case T-237/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark NANO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Łabowicz v EUIPO — Pure Fishing (NANO)
   (Case T-237/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark NANO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2426/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pure Fishing and Mr Łabowicz

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Edward Łabowicz to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/2

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2006/C 326/05)
   At its meeting on 11 October 2006, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               Mr Schintgen

               Mr von Danwitz

               Mr Tizzano

               Mr Bonichot

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Ms Lindh

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Mr Bay Larsen

               Mr Schiemann

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Mr Makarczyk

               Mr Levits

               Mr Kūris

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Juhász

               Mr Klučka

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr Borg Barthet

               Mr Ilešič

         At its meeting on 11 October 2006, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:
   First Chamber
   Mr Schintgen
   Mr Levits
   Mr Tizzano
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Borg Barthet
   Second Chamber
   Mr Schiemann
   Mr Bonichot
   Mr Makarczyk
   Mr Bay Larsen
   Mr Kūris
   Third Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Ms Lindh
   Mr Klučka
   Mr Ó Caoimh
   Mr Lõhmus
   Fourth Chamber
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr von Danwitz
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Malenovský
   Mr Arestis
   At its meeting on 13 October 2006, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Tizzano
   Mr Borg Barthet
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Levits
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Schiemann
   Mr Makarczyk
   Mr Bay Larsen
   Mr Bonichot
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Mr Lõhmus
   Mr Ó Caoimh
   Ms Lindh
   Eighth Chamber
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Arestis
   Mr Malenovský
   Mr von Danwitz


title: Case C-100/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil d'État, Section du Contentieux, 2ème et 1ère sous-sections réunies, by decision of that court of 29 December 2000 in the case of Ministre de l'intérieur against Aitor Oteiza Olazabal

text:
7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 108/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the above-mentioned provision, to the advantage of the
                                                                        traditional operator.
The Commission complains that the Grand Duchy has failed
to ensure that rights of way are not discriminatory in                  (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
nature; that failure may result either in the provisions of the             tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192
Luxembourg Law on telecommunications of 27 March 1997                       of 24.7.1990, p. 10).
being incorrectly applied or in the need for additional measures        (2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                            Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
to be incorporated into the Luxembourg legal order so as to
                                                                            competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 74, 22.3.1996,
ensure that Article 4d of the directive is properly transposed.             p. 13).
The rules applicable to the approval procedure laid down in
Article 35(1) of the Law are imprecise, especially as regards
the connection between those rules and the traditional pro-
cedures for the grant of rights of way. The Luxembourg
Government has still not determined or published those rules,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
and, in the absence of them, the various administrative                 d’État, Section du Contentieux, 2ème et 1ère sous-sections
authorities competent to grant rights of way over public land           réunies, by decision of that court of 29 December 2000
have not granted such rights to new operators entering the              in the case of Ministre de l’intérieur against Aitor Oteiza
market, even though the Law in question provides for this.                                            Olazabal
                                                                                (Case C-100/01)
As regards rights of way along the motorway network, the
Luxembourg authorities have pointed out certain difficulties                                      (2001/C 108/21)
resulting from the legislation relating to the creation of a large-
scale road communication system, whereas, according to the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
information available to the Commission, the work involved              European Communities by decision of 29 December of the
in laying supply and distribution cables along motorways has            French Conseil d’État, Section du Contentieux, 2ème et 1ère
been undertaken since that legislation entered into force.              sous-sections réunies (Council of State, sitting in judicial
                                                                        formation, 2nd and 1st sub-divisions combined), received at
As far as the Commission is aware, the complainant Coditel              the Court Registry on 28 February 2001, for a preliminary
has been provided with no cogent justification for the refusals         ruling in the case of Ministre de 1’intérieur against Aitor Oteiza
which it has met with from the various organisations and                Olazabal on the following question:
administrative authorities in response to its applications for
the grant of rights of way. In particular, those refusals make          Do Articles 6, 8a and 48 of the Treaty of Rome, now Articles
no reference whatever to the applicable essential requirements          12 EC, [18] EC and 48 EC, the principle of proportionality
provided for in Article 4d of Directive 90/388 as amended.              applicable in Community law and the provisions of secondary
                                                                        law adopted to implement the Treaty, in particular Directive
                                                                        62/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 (1), preclude a Member State
According to the information available to the Commission, no            from adopting, as against a national of another Member State
network operator seeking, as a new entrant, to enter the                to which the provisions of the Treaty apply, a measure for the
market has yet been granted any rights of way over public               maintenance of public order which, subject to judicial review,
land enabling that operator to provide a connection between             restricts that national’s residence to a part of the national
local networks and networks stretching from frontier to                 territory when interests of public order preclude him from
frontier and over the border, such as to place that operator in         residing in the remainder of the territory, or in such circum-
the position of being able to offer telecommunications services         stances is the only measure restricting residence that can
in competition with the traditional operator EPT.                       lawfully be taken as against that national a measure excluding
                                                                        him from the whole territory and adopted in accordance with
By failing to take all the measures necessary in order to ensure        national law?
the effective and non-discriminatory exercise of rights of
way, and by thereby deviating from Article 4d of Directive              (1) Directive 64/221/EEC of the Council of 25 February 1964 on the
90/388/EEC as amended by Directive 96/19/EC, the Grand                      coordination of special measures concerning the movement and
Duchy of Luxembourg has, at the very least, granted itself an               residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
additional period in which to implement the regulatory                      public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English Special
framework underlying the liberalisation; it has thus infringed              Edition 1964, p. 117).


title: Case C-205/01: Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
28.7.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/13
Action brought on 16 May 2001 by the Commission of                       —     By April 2000, 41 of the 96 sites listed in the IACB as
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          wetlands of international importance had not yet been
                                                                               classified by France as special protection areas and in the
                                                                               case of at least 4 of the 45 sites which had been so
                          (Case C-202/01)                                      classified, the classification applied only to the minimum
                                                                               surface area possible — notwithstanding the fact that
                                                                               Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409/EEC requires that such
                          (2001/C 212/21)                                      sites be classified as special protection areas in order to
                                                                               protect wetlands and the species of bird which live there,
                                                                               particularly migratory species. There has not yet been any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   significant improvement in this situation.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 May
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,          (Infringement procedure 97/4527 concerning the application
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               of the Directive to the Plaine des Maures)
                                                                         —     In classifying as special protection areas no more than
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    879 hectares out of the 7 500 hectares covered by the
                                                                               IACB (that is to say, 11.72 %), France has also failed to
—     Declare that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                fulfil its obligation under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive
      obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of                        79/409/EEC to classify as special protection areas the
      2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and                   most suitable territories in number and size.
      under the Treaty establishing the European Community,
      in that it has not, in satisfactory measure, classified as
      special protection areas the territories most suitable for         (1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
      the conservation of the species of wild bird listed in             (2) Case C-3/96 Commission v Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031.
      Annex I to that Directive or of migratory species of bird,
      and, in particular, in that it has not classified as a special
      protection area a sufficiently large area of land on the
      Plaine des Maures;
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 18 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                                lands
(Infringement procedure 97/2004 concerning the application
of the Directive in general)                                                                       (Case C-205/01)
—     When the deadline provided for in Article 18 of Directive                                    (2001/C 212/22)
      79/409/EEC expired on 16 April 1989, the French
      Republic had not yet adopted the measures necessary to
      comply with its obligations under Article 4 thereof. The           An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      special protection areas designated so far are insufficient        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      in terms of number, size and quality to meet the                   18 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities,
      protection needs of the species of bird concerned. Only            represented by R. Wainright and J. Stuyck, acting as Agents.
      40,7 % of the 285 sites named in the official list of
      ‘Important areas for the conservation of birds’ (the IACB)         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      — published in 1994 by the French Ministry of the
      Environment and the League for the Protection of Birds             —     Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
      and based on the most reliable scientific data then                      and administrative provisions necessary in order to
      available — and only 18,2 % of the land covered by those                 implement in national law Articles 8(2), 11, 18(1) and
      sites has been classed, in whole or in part, as special                  22(1) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC(1) of 24 Novem-
      protection areas. The Court of Justice has recognised that               ber 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
      those lists are relevant and may be relied upon in actions               administrative provisions of the Member States regarding
      against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations (2).             the protection of animals used for experimental and other
      According to the Commission, the French Government                       scientific purposes, or in any case by failing to inform the
      has not yet drawn up a list showing that the findings of                 Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the
      the IACB are unsound and the latter remains the best                     Netherlands has failed to take the measures necessary to
      scientific evidence available on the basis of which to                   comply with Article 25 of Directive 86/609/EEC that are
      make an overall assessment of the classifications effected               necessary to comply with the directive by 24 November
      by France in respect of its territory.                                   1989 at the latest;
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                   (b) the third party has no defence to infringement by
                                                                                virtue of Article 6(1) of the Council Directive of the
                                                                                21st December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      the Member States relating to trade marks
                                                                                (89/104/EEC) (1);
The Commission submits that Netherlands has not correctly
implemented the following provisions of the directive into                     does the third party have a defence to infringement on
Netherlands law:                                                               the ground that the use complained of does not indicate
                                                                               trade origin (i.e. a connection in the course of trade
—     Article 8(2) (use of anaesthesia in the case of serious                  between the goods and the trade mark proprietor)?
      injury which may cause severe pain): A draft amendment
      to the ‘Dierproevenbesluit’ (animal experiments order) for
                                                                          2.   If so, is the fact that the use in question would be
      the implementation of Article 8(2)(b), last sentence,
                                                                               perceived as a badge of support, loyalty or affiliation to
      of the directive, was, according to the Netherlands
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor a sufficient connection?
      Government, recently sent for the opinion of the Raad
      van State.
—     Article 11 (release of animals): The Commission submits
      that Article 10(a), second paragraph of the Wet op de               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
      Dierproeven (law on animal experiments) has a general
      scope and does not concern specifically the release of
      animals.
—     Article 18(1) (identification marking of dogs, cats and
      primates): There is no provision in Netherlands law to
      the effect that before they are weaned they must be provided
      with an individual identification mark in the least painful
      manner possible.
—     Article 22(1) (mutual recognition of results of animal
      experiments): The Commission submits that this pro-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfin-
      vision must be implemented in national law by means of              anzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the
      a statutory provision with binding force.                           case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v
                                                                                Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd
(1) OJ 1987, L 117, p. 31.
                                                                                (Case C-209/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/24)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   (Federal Finance Court) of 21 February 2001, which was
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                    received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2001, for a
of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal                       preliminary ruling in the case of Theodor Schilling and
           Football Club plc against Matthew Reed                         Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd on the
                                                                          following questions:
                          (Case C-206/01)
                                                                          1.   Is it contrary to the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
                                                                               Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Euro-
                         (2001/C 212/23)                                       pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (BGBl II 1965, 1482,
                                                                               1488) if German nationals who work in Luxembourg as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         officials of the European Community and live there may
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          not, in the context of assessment to German income tax,
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 4 May 2001,                   deduct expenditure in respect of a household help
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for                   employed in Luxembourg under Paragraph 10(1)(8) of
a preliminary ruling in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc                  the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax) because
against Matthew Reed, on the following questions:                              the contributions to the statutory pension insurance
                                                                               scheme for the household help were not paid to the
1.    Where a trade mark is validly registered and
                                                                               German pension insurance scheme?
      (a)   a third party uses in the course of trade a sign
            identical with that trade mark in relation to goods           2.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 48(4)
            which are identical with those for whom the trade-                 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that an EC
            mark is registered; and                                            official may not rely on Article 48 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case T-41/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Dimon Incorporated against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/33

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Dimon Incorporated against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-41/05)
   (2005/C 93/64)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Dimon Incorporated, established in Danville, Virginia (USA), represented by L.Bergkamp, H. Cogels and J. Dhont, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the contested decision null and void to the extent that they refer to Dimon Inc.;

               —

               in second order, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansion S.A. and on a joint and severally basis to Dimon Inc.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw tobacco Spain). The applicant claims that it is not the correct addressee of the decision.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringement of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest error in finding that the applicant exercised a decisive influence over Agroexpansion during the infringement period and has therefore incorrectly addressed the decision to the applicant and has exceeded the maximum limit for the amount of the fine that can be imposed on Agroexpansion, since the Commission has taken into consideration the Dimon's group turnover for calculating the maximum ceiling of the fine.
   The applicant furthermore submits a violation of the principle of proportionality and liability to the extent that the applicant has been held liable for a single and complex long term cartel agreement carried out by Agroexpansion of which the applicant was not informed.
   The applicant also submits a violation of the principle of proportionality and liability and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the applicant, it should not have been held liable for the infringements that occurred before Agroexpansion became part of the Dimon group.
   Finally, the applicant submits a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations in the application of a mitigating factor, pursuant to Section 3 of the Commission's Guidelines of 1998 (2), following the early termination of the infringement as soon as the Commission began the investigation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the ruleson competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, p. 3)


title: Case T-203/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (Olymp)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/20

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (Olymp)
   (Case T-203/09)
   2009/C 167/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Bellido, S.A. (Manzanares, Ciudad Real, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2009 in case R 531/2008-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘Olymp’ for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘OLIMPO’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark concerned invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) and of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, due to the fact that the concerned trade marks are not visually, aurally or conceptually similar.


title: Case F-81/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — BY v EASA (EASA staff — Temporary staff — Admissibility — Period for bringing proceedings — Unfavourable evaluation report — Reassignment — Psychological harassment — Misuse of power)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — BY v EASA
   (Case F-81/11) (1)

   (EASA staff - Temporary staff - Admissibility - Period for bringing proceedings - Unfavourable evaluation report - Reassignment - Psychological harassment - Misuse of power)
   2013/C 252/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BY (Lasne, Belgium) (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: F. Manuhutu, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report and application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BY to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 41.


title: Case T-25/06: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market sharing — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission
   (Case T-25/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines)
   2011/C 311/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance One International, Inc. (Danville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, and subsequently by E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, application for a reduction in the fine imposed on Alliance One International.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-161/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely BV v Belgische Staat (Free movement of goods — Community transit — Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or irregularities — Notification period — Period within which proof must be furnished of the place where the offence or irregularity was committed)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely BV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-161/08) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Community transit - Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet - Offences or irregularities - Notification period - Period within which proof must be furnished of the place where the offence or irregularity was committed)
   2009/C 153/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely BV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991 providing for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents (OJ 1991 L 148, p. 11), read in conjunction with Article 11 of the TIR Convention — Offences or irregularities — Notification period

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991 providing for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets, signed in Geneva on 14 November 1975, must be interpreted as meaning that failure to comply with the period within which the holder of a TIR carnet is to be notified of its non-discharge does not have the consequence that the competent customs authorities forfeit the right to recover the duties and taxes due in respect of the international transport of goods made under cover of that carnet.

               2.

               Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1593/91, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets, signed in Geneva on 14 November 1975, must be interpreted as determining only the period within which proof is to be furnished of the regularity of the transport operation, and not the period within which proof must be provided as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed. It is for the national court to determine, according to the principles of national law on evidence, whether, in the specific case before it and in the light of all the circumstances, that proof was furnished within the period prescribed. However, the national court must determine that period in compliance with Community law and, in particular, must take account of the fact, first, that the period must not be so long as to make it legally and materially impossible to recover the amounts due in another Member State, and, second, that that period must not make it materially impossible for the TIR carnet holder to furnish that proof.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-502/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/60/EC — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose completely — Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-502/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose completely - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)
   2009/C 282/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by:J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-82/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/21
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The corresponding request for payment in full was made
                                                                       by letter of 31 March 1995 from the Assessore Regionale
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      all'Agricoltura, which was never answered by the
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    Commission. Consequently, in November 1996, since the
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           applicant region had not received the payment requested,
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   it sent a request for payment to the Commission , which
                                                                       stated in response that, as the request for payment in full
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   in respect of the project in question should have reached it
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                     by 31 March 1995 , whereas it had only arrived four days
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    later, the Community assistance had to be withdrawn
                                                                       pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            88 (').
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims in the first place that Article 10 of
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 has been infringed in so far
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 as that provision does not provide that requests for
Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                     payment must be received by the Commission by
                                                                       31 March, but only that they must have been 'the subject
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                     of a request for final payment by 31 March 1995 '.
                                                                       Consequently, the letter from the Region of Tuscany
                                                                       correctly complies with the provision of the Regulation in
                                                                       question, which lays down the deadline for sending the
                                                                       request and not for its receipt.
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Region of Tuscany                The application also claims that there has been a failure to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   comply with the principle of proportionality. In the
                          (Case T-81/97)                               applicant's view, even it is accepted that the region did not
                           ( 97/C 166/43 )                             correctly comply with the provision — which it denies —,
                                                                       the economic burden is excessive by comparison with the
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      aim pursued, that is to say, the automatic sanction of
                                                                       forfeiture of the security laid down for a markedly less
An action against the Commission of the European                       serious infringement than failure to fulfil the principal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation which the security itself is intended to
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1997                   guarantee .
by the Region of Tuscany, Florence, represented by Vito
Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an                    Lastly, the applicant claims that there has been a further
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   infringement of Community law in the shape of a breach
Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de Vianden.                                      of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations . It
                                                                       points in this connection to the complete lack of reaction
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           on the part of the Commission between May 1995 and
                                                                       November 1996 . That lack of reaction created a legitimate
— annul memorandum VI/040551 of the European                           expectation in the region that it would receive the funding
     Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —                already earmarked for the works in question, given that it
     of 21 November 1994,                                              had been established that the works had been properly
                                                                       completed .
— annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
     — by which the European Commission withdrew the                   (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
     Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for project No                          No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section ( OJ No
     88.20 .IT.006.0 (works for the supply of potable water                L 374 , 1988 , p. 25 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                           No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 ( OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p. 44 ).
     in Tuscany ),
— annul the European Commission 's memorandum of
     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
     7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
     it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
                                                                       Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-82/97)
In this case the Region of Tuscany challenges the                                                 ( 97/C 166/44 )
defendant's act withdrawing the financial assistance
earmarked         under      the   Integrated    Mediterranean                        (Language of the case: French)
Programme ( IMP ) for a project for the supply of potable
water in Tuscany amounting in total to approximately                   An action against the Commission of the European
ECU 900 000 .                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                  works contract was awarded for the supply of monobloc
by Patrick Rousseaux, residing in Brussels, represented by             concrete sleepers on the basis of a qualification procedure
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               devised by the SNCB . One of the grounds of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               applicant's complaint is the fact that the rejection of its
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                             tender, for failure to meet technical requirements, was
                                                                       based on the misconception that the monobloc sleepers
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decided on by the SNCB and the duo-bloc sleepers offered
                                                                       by the applicant are not perfectly substitutable . According
                                                                       to the applicant company, the contested decision closing
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      the file endorsed that incorrect technical assessment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    The Commission based its decision not to proceed on the
                                                                       lack of any Community interest in bringing an action
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   against the Belgian State for failure to fulfil its obligations .
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    In support of its contentions, the applicant alleges a
                                                                       breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           the Commission did not hear its views at any stage and,
                                                                       second, it did not specify the legislative basis for its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    decision not to proceed with an investigation. Specifically,
                                                                       in giving a decision on the contract in question, the
                                                                       Commission cannot rely in abstracto on Community law
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 relating to public works contracts without taking account
Case T-16/97 C ).                                                      of the rules governing competition . In that regard, the
                                                                       contested decision should be declared unlawful under
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  Article 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 90 (2 )
                                                                       thereof. The applicant stresses that the SNCB enjoys a
                                                                       monopoly for operation of the Belgian railway system,
                                                                       that it has been granted authority for type-approval of the
                                                                       equipment used in its network and that the technical
                                                                       specifications at issue in these proceedings are
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de                   unfavourable only to imported products .
Traverses en Béton Armé ( Sateba) against Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                       Finally, the applicant alleges an incorrect assessment of the
                          ( Case T-83/97)                              facts and a misuse of powers . It states in that connection
                            ( 97/C 166/45 )                            that, in the field of competition, where circumstances
                                                                       constituting an infringement exist, the Commission may
                 (Language of the case: French)                        impose a sanction of an economic nature on the
                                                                       undertakings concerned. In its view, it was only in order
An action against the Commission of the European                       to evade the application of Community law in this area
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that the Commission adopted a decision not to proceed in
Instance on 1 April 1997 by Societe Anonyme de Traverses               respect of acts imputable to the SNCB, at the same time
en Beton Arme ( Sateba ), whose registered office is in                concluding that there was no Community interest in
Paris, represented by Jacques Manseau, of the Paris Bar,               taking proceedings against the Belgian State. However, by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       referring to the Belgian State rather than to the SNCB, the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                    defendant is endeavouring to make its decision
                                                                        unchallengeable by virtue of the settled case-law
                                                                        concerning the application of Article 169 of the Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
— annul Commission Decision of 20 January 1997,
     Reference No XV/B3/MM/(96 ) D/2312,
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie
 — order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-85/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                97/C 166/46 )
 The applicant, a French company operating in the railway                              (Language of the case: French)
 infrastructure sector, contests the Commission decision
 closing the file on the complaint it lodged against Societe
 Nationale des Chemins de Fer Beiges ( SNCB ). That                     An action against the Commission of the European
 complaint concerned the conditions under which a public                Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-341/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Dortmund — Germany) — Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(5) and 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Provision of national law setting a maximum age of 68 for practice as a panel dentist — Aim pursued — Measure necessary for the protection of health — Consistency — Appropriateness of the measure)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Dortmund — Germany) — Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe
   (Case C-341/08) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(5) and 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Provision of national law setting a maximum age of 68 for practice as a panel dentist - Aim pursued - Measure necessary for the protection of health - Consistency - Appropriateness of the measure)
   2010/C 179/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Dortmund

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Domnica Petersen

      Defendant: Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe

      Joined parties: AOK Westfalen-Lippe, BKK-Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen, Vereinigte IKK, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Knappschaft-Bahn-See — Dezernat 0.63, Landwirtschaftliche Krankenkasse NRW, Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen eV, AEV — Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband eV, Kassenzahnärtzliche Vereinigung Westfalen-Lippe

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Dortmund (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p.16) — Prohibition of discrimination based on age — Concepts of ‘legitimate aim’ which may justify different treatment based on age and ‘appropriate and necessary means’ of achieving that aim — National provision fixing a maximum age for a panel dentist, with the aim of protecting patients’ health

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(5) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, setting a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years, where the sole aim of that measure is to protect the health of patients against the decline in performance of those dentists after that age, since that age limit does not apply to non-panel dentists.;
               Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding such a measure where its aim is to share out employment opportunities among the generations in the profession of panel dentist, if, taking into account the situation in the labour market concerned, the measure is appropriate and necessary for achieving that aim.
               It is for the national court to identify the aim pursued by the measure laying down that age limit, by ascertaining the reason for maintaining the measure.

               2.

               If legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, having regard to its objective, were contrary to Directive 2000/78, it would be for the national court hearing a dispute between an individual and an administrative body such as the Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe to decline to apply that legislation, even if it were prior to that directive and national law made no provision for disapplying it.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-205/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-68/08: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. European Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/13

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-68/08: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. European Commission
   (Case C-205/11 P)
   2011/C 232/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav, and D. Reymond, avocats)

      Otherparties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the judgment of the General Court delivered on 17 February 201 1 in Case T-68/08 as regards admissibility;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-68/08 as regards the substance, in so far as it approves the inclusion of the ‘non-prime’ matches of the FIFA World Cup™ in the UK list of events ‘of major importance for society’ within the meaning of the Directive;

               —

               give final judgment pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay FIFA's costs arising from the proceedings at first instance and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   1.   Error of law, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Article 3a (2) of Directive 89/552/EEC
       (1)
      as amended by Directive 97/36/EC
       (2)
      and of EU law, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU (exceeding the bounds of judicial review, contradictory reasoning, introducing reasons not given in the contested decision as regards the categorisation of the FIFA World Cup™ and drawing wrong legal conclusions therefrom, reversing the burden of proof)
   The appellant contends that the General Court infringed EU law in giving reasons not featured in the Commission decision (3) for its finding that the Commission correctly characterised the FIFA World Cup™ as ‘by nature, a single event’ for the purposes of
   Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, in giving contradictory and inconsistent reasons, in holding that no specific grounds should be supplied by Member States for including the entire FIFA World Cup™ in their lists of major events, and in reversing the burden of proof.
   2.   Error of law, infringement of Article 3a (1) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU (the finding that the Commission correctly held that the list of the UK measures was drawn up ‘in a clear and transparent manner’)
   The appellant submits that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found that the UK events list was drawn up ‘in a clear and transparent manner’, as prescribed by Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, regardless of the fact that the inclusion of the entire FIFA World Cup™ in that list was decided against unanimous contrary advice and that it was presented to the Commission, inter alia, on grounds that did not exist on the date on which the said list was drawn up.
   3.   Error of law, infringement of Article 3a (1) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (mischaracterisation of the FIFA World Cup™, overstepping the limits of judicial review, relying on considerations not featured in the contested decision, erroneous assessment of facts relating to ‘nonprime’ matches and drawing wrong legal conclusions therefrom, finding the reasons given in the contested decision sufficient, failure to address arguments raised)
   The appellant argues that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found and gave sufficient reasons for its finding that the entire FIFA World Cup™ is an event of major importance for UK society within the meaning of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC. In particular, the General Court made an error of law and drew wrong legal conclusions from the facts in endorsing the Commission's unsupported findings that the entire FIFA World Cup™ has ‘a special general resonance in the UK’, that it has been traditionally broadcast on free-to-air television and that it commanded large audiences.
   4.   Error of law, infringement of EU law, violation of Article 3a (l) and (2) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, misapplication of Article 296 TFEU, violation of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (disregarding the scope of judicial review, holding that the Commission correctly found and gave sufficient reasons for its finding that the notified UK measures are compatible with EU law and that the restrictions entailed by them are proportionate, misconstruction of the scope of the right to information and of the public interest in wide access to televised events of major importance for society)

      This plea is divided into three branches:

   First branch: The appellant alleges that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found that the notified UK measures were compatible with EU law, although the restrictions on the right of establishment were not addressed in the contested decision. The General Court further infringed EU law by holding that the restrictions on the right of establishment were proportionate and in holding that the Commission lawfully found, and that it gave sufficient reasons for its finding, that the restrictions on the freedom to provide services were proportionate.
   Second branch: The appellant contends that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found that the notified UK measures were compatible with EU law, although the restrictions on FIFA's property rights were not addressed in the contested decision. The General Court further infringed EU law by holding that the restrictions on FIFA's right to property were proportionate.
   Third branch: The appellant maintains that the General Court infringed EU law in holding that the Commission lawfully found, and that it gave sufficient reasons for its finding, that the notified UK measures are compatible with the EU rules on competition, on the ground that the restrictions on the freedom to provide services were justified. The General Court further infringed EU law in holding that the Commission did not have to define the relevant market for assessing restrictions on competition and that the said measures involved no granting of special rights within the meaning of Article 106 (l) TFEU.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 298, p. 23

      (2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
   OJ L 202, p. 60

      (3)  Commission decision (2007/730/EC) of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a (1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
   OJ L 295, p. 12.


title: Case T-241/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 June 2015 — Buga v Parliament and Others (Application — Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 2 June 2015 — Buga v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-241/15 R)
   ((Application - Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 245/34)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Aurel Buga (Bacău, Romania) (represented by: M.Vasii, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking to order the Romanian authorities to suspend the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant before a national court.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-63/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/13

         Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-63/07)
   (2007/C 69/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Grounds and principal arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on 6 July 2005

      (1)  OJ L 177, p. 13.


title: Case F-156/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Action for damages — Wrongful conduct — Harassment by line-managers — Occupational disease — Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered — Application for supplementary damages)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/48

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions
      (Case F-156/12) (1)

      (Civil Service - Officials - Action for damages - Wrongful conduct - Harassment by line-managers - Occupational disease - Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered - Application for supplementary damages)
      (2015/C 016/72)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet and J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application to annul the decision refusing to grant damages on account of the wrongful conduct of the Committee of the Regions and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 20 000;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Declares that the Committee of the Regions of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

         (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 31.


title: Case C-115/13: Action brought on 11 March 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/11

         Action brought on 11 March 2013 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-115/13)
   2013/C 129/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Barslev and A. Sipos, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfill its obligations under Articles 19 to 21 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC, (1) in conjunction with Articles 22(7) of that directive and 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC, (2) by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which, in circumstances determined by national law,

                           —

                           the rate of the excise duty on the manufacture of ethyl alcohol in distilleries for an individual customer (‘bérfőzető’) is set at HUF 0;

                           —

                           the manufacture of ethyl alcohol by individuals is exempt from special duty;

               —

               order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 19 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Hungary is required to apply the rate of excise duty in accordance with the directive — and Article 22 thereof in particular — and to maintain in force the national rules in that regard, while Article 22 governs the cases in which the Member States may apply rates of excise duty which are more favourable compared with the standard national rates of duty.
   Pursuant to Paragraph 64(3) of the Hungarian law CXXVII of 2003 on excise duties and the specific rules on the marketing of goods subject to excise duties (a jövedéki adóról és a jövedéki termékek forgalmazásának különös szabályairól szóló 2003. évi CXXVII. Törvény), in the case of distillation on behalf of individual customers, the duty applicable to the spirit manufactured from the raw materials of the individual customer is HUF 0 up to a maximum amount of 50 litres per year for an individual customer. However, the directive does not allow a reduction of more than 50 per cent of the normal rate of excise duty.
   Further, on the basis of that national law, the manufacture by individual distillers of up to 50 litres of ethyl alcohol per year is exempt from excise duty. Directive 92/83/EEC does not contain any provisions concerning the exemption from duty of the home manufacture of ethyl alcohol, and, for that reason, the Commission takes the view that it is not possible — without breaching the provisions of the directive — to introduce an exemption at national level. If the Union legislature had wished to provide for such a possibility, express provision to that effect would have been included in the directive. The directive allows the exemption from duty — provided that the requirements laid down are complied with — only in the case of the manufacture by individuals of beer, wine or other still or sparkling fermented drinks.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29).


title: Case T-132/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Casini v Commission (Commission officials — Promotion — 2002 procedure — Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 — Duty to state reasons — Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment — Probative nature of subsequent statements of members of the personnel service — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Casini v Commission
   (Case T-132/03) (1)

   (Commission officials - Promotion - 2002 procedure - Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 - Duty to state reasons - Consideration of the comparative merits - Manifest error of assessment - Probative nature of subsequent statements of members of the personnel service - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 281/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Paola Casini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 6 in respect of the 2002 promotion procedure, and damages for material and non-material damage suffered
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002 not to promote the applicant to Grade A 6 in respect of the 2002 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 000 to compensate for non-material damage she has suffered;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-156/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2007 — Salvatore Aiello and Others v Comune di Milano, Sindaco di Milano, Comitato tecnico — scientifico per l'emergenza del traffico e della mobilità nella città di Milano, Provincia di Milano, Regione Lombardia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell'Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Euromilano SpA, Metropolitana milanese SpA

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2007 — Salvatore Aiello and Others v Comune di Milano, Sindaco di Milano, Comitato tecnico — scientifico per l'emergenza del traffico e della mobilità nella città di Milano, Provincia di Milano, Regione Lombardia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell'Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Euromilano SpA, Metropolitana milanese SpA
   (Case C-156/07)
   (2007/C 140/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Salvatore Aiello and Others

      Defendants: Comune di Milano, Sindaco di Milano, Comitato tecnico — scientifico per l'emergenza del traffico e della mobilità nella città di Milano, Provincia di Milano, Regione Lombardia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dell'Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Euromilano SpA, Metropolitana milanese SpA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1), in so far as it states that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, and that such projects are defined in Article 4, be interpreted as meaning:

                           —

                           that any project with a significant effect on the environment must, even if it is not listed in Annexes I or II to the Directive, be made subject to an environmental impact assessment;

                           —

                           or, conversely, that only projects of a kind listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment?

               2.

               Does Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC, in so far as it gives Member States the possibility of providing for environmental impact assessments to be carried out for projects in the classes listed in Annex II on the basis of case-by-case assessments or predetermined criteria — account also being taken of the criteria set out in Annex III — create a specific obligation or merely an option for the Member States to take account of all the criteria listed in Annex III?

               3.

               Does Article 1 of the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 constitute due transposition into national law of Article 4 of Directive 85/337/EEC and Annex III thereto by the Italian legislature, given that it does not provide, as a criterion for making projects in the classes listed in Annex II to the Directive subject to an environmental impact assessment, for the criterion of cumulation with other projects, as referred to in Annex III to the Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.


title: Case C-508/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity of the infringement — Multiplier for deterrence — Actual impact on the market — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringements)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Eni SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-508/11 P P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity of the infringement - Multiplier for deterrence - Actual impact on the market - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringements)
   2013/C 225/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Eni SpA (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and M.L. Malferrari, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 — Case T-39/07 Eni v Commission by which the General Court dismissed in part the action seeking the annulment, as regards Eni SpA, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber), or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Eni — Evidence of infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-90/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 February 2017 — Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 February 2017 — Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-90/17)
   (2017/C 144/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

               1.

               Pursuant to and for the purposes of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, (1) must entities which produce electricity for their own use be small producers in order for them to be … regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, so that other entities (those which are not small producers) which produce electricity for their own use are excluded from that classification as distributors, or must all entities which produce electricity for their own use (regardless of their respective size and of whether they do so as their main or secondary economic activity), and are not exempt as small producers under the second sentence of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, be regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive?

               2.

               In particular, may an entity, such as the one at issue in these proceedings, which is a large electricity producer, producing around 9 % of the national energy for sale to the national grid, be regarded as ‘an entity producing electricity for its own use’, as referred to in Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, when only a small part of the electricity which it produces is consumed in its own production of new electricity as an integral part of its production process?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case C-107/01: Action brought on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (3) If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative
                                                                              and the second in the negative, must the measures
                                                                              requested in these proceedings be regarded as provisional
In the Commission’s view, the term ‘armed forces or [those                    or protective measures within the meaning of Article 24
responsible for] the maintenance of law and order’, to whose                  of the Brussels Convention?
protective equipment the directive, pursuant to the second
indent of Article 1(4) and Annex I thereof, is not applicable, is
a concept of Community law, and is not to be defined by
reference to the legislation of the Member States. Fire brigades
do not form part of the ‘armed forces or [those responsible
for] the maintenance of law and order’ within the meaning of
the directive, even if, in a Member State, they are under the
control of the Minister of Defence or, as in Germany, that of a         Action brought on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of
Land authority.                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-107/01)
(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
                                                                                (2001/C 118/35)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 6 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nederlanden by order of 2 March 2001 in the case of
                 A.T. van der Plas en W.H. Guis                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                         (Case C-105/01)                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 amending
                                                                              Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of
                         (2001/C 118/34)                                      road haulage operator and road passenger transport
                                                                              operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
                                                                              and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of
European Communities by order of 2 March 2001 by the                          establishment in national and international transport
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Nether-                       operations, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate
lands), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March                   such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T. van der Plas               Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
en W.H. Guis on the following questions:                                      directive; and
(1) On a proper construction of the first part of, and of               —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      paragraph (2) of, Article 16, do the abovementioned
      claims in 1(a) to (e), brought against a director, resident
      in the Netherlands, of a company established in the               Pleas in law and main arguments
      Netherlands which holds the shares in a company
      established in France, in order to obtain his collaboration       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
      in the calling of a general meeting and to effect certain         of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
      decisions concerning the company established in France,           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
      relate to what is laid down in the abovementioned                 to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
      provisions of the Convention, on the understanding that           law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
      the French court must be considered to have exclusive             forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
      jurisdiction as to those claims?                                  which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 98/76/EC,
                                                                        expired on 1 October 1999 without the Grand Duchy
(2) If the answer to the first question is to be in the                 of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
      affirmative, does the jurisdiction of a court, on the basis       provisions.
      of the first part of, and paragraph (2) of, Article 16 of
      the Brussels Convention, preclude a court of another              (1) OJ 1998 L 227, p. 17.
      contracting state from having jurisdiction on the basis of
      Article 24 of the Brussels Convention to adopt provisional
      or protective measures provided for by law?


title: Case C-397/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/11

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council
   (Case C-397/13 P)
   2013/C 274/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Simone Gbagbo (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal brought by Ms Simone Gbagbo admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP; (1) Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005; (2) Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire; (3) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, (4) in so far as they concern the appellant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
   First, the appellant criticises the General Court for rejecting her plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. The appellant takes issue with the General Court for finding that the Council had provided sufficient information when the sole reason for the contested decision was, according to the appellant, her status as ‘President of the FPI group in the National Assembly’.
   Secondly, the appellant argues that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the facts. She maintains that the facts construed as obstruction of the peace and reconciliation processes and as public incitement to hatred and violence are substantively inaccurate; moreover, there is not even any evidence to support them.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2011 L. 93, p. 20.

      (4)  OJ 2011 L. 93, p. 10.


title: Case C-223/13: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 — Referral to the General Court of the European Union)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/17

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission
   (Case C-223/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 - Referral to the General Court of the European Union))
   2014/C 175/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Refer Case C-223/13 back to the General Court of the European Union.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.06.2013


title: Case T-417/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Cortés del Valle López v OHIM (¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA)
   (Case T-417/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 126/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federico Cortés del Valle López (Maliaño, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2010 (Case R 175/2010-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the figurative sign ¡Que buenu ye! HIJOPUTA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Federico Cortés del Valle López to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.