title: Case T-58/03: Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/48                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica                 The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
S.p.A., represented by Ombretta Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer.                  in Case T-287/01.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002, p. 15.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (2 ) Not yet published.
—     declare that the European Commission has failed to
      perform Contract BM/1007/94 of 12 December 1994
      (thermie programme);
—     declare the contract terminated by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the European Commission to pay to              Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
      the applicant compensation — to be decided in separate             Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation) against the
      proceedings — by way of compensation of the damages                         Commission of the European Communities
      sustained by the applicant as a result of the failure of the
      project;
                                                                                (Case T-58/03)
—     in the alternative, declare in any event that Bioelettrica
      owes no debt to the European Community in respect of                                         (2003/C 101/84)
      the funding received to date or any interest on the same,
      and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
                                                                         Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation), represented by
                                                                         Giovanni Vezzoli, Gianluca Belotti and Elisabetta Stefania
The present action concerns the same project as that in which            Piromalli, lawyers.
the Commission’s decision to withdraw is challenged in Case
T-287/01 Biolettrica v Commission (1) and T-42/03 Lurgi AG
and Lurgi S.p.A. v Commission (2). The applicant relies upon             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the statements made by the Commission in the context of the
termie project, as follows:                                              —     annul the contested decision;
—     6.9.2001 the Commission stated that the contract was at            —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed to take account
      an end;                                                                  of the fact that conduct subsequent to its going into
                                                                               liquidation (25 November 1998/4 December 1998) can-
                                                                               not be imputed to Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi
—     20.11.2001 the contract was regarded as still being in                   S.p.A. (in liquidation) and to take account of wrongful
      effect;                                                                  application of the increase in respect of duration to the
                                                                               whole of the basic fine as well as the specific financial
—     1.3.2002 the Commission confirmed that the contract                      situation of Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in
      was still in effect;                                                     liquidation), and
—     26.11.2002 the Commission stated that the contract was             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      at an end, having been terminated not on 26.11.2002
      but on 6.9.2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance has not
considered the merits of the Commission’s second revocation
of the contract, that being in issue in Case T-287/01, or the            The present action is brought against the same decision as that
lawfulness of the revocation of 6 September 2001, which was              challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas in
based on Article 8(2)(f) of the General Conditions, Annex II to          law and principal arguments are similar to those in that case.
the contract, whereas the termination of 26 November 2002                Of particular importance are pleas alleging infringement of the
is based on Article 8(2)(d) of the General Conditions.                   rights of the defence in the procedure conducted by the
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/49
Commission and inequality of treatment in that the Com-                   Opodo, alleging infringements of Article 81 and 82 of the EC
mission recognised in the case of another undertaking involved            Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejects the
in the same procedure mitigating factors which it denied the              complaint of the applicant.
applicant.
                                                                          In support of their application, the applicants invoke a
                                                                          manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the
                                                                          Commission’s obligation to investigate complaints with due
                                                                          diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under
                                                                          Article 81(1) EC Treaty.
Action brought on 19 February 2003 by TQ3 Travel
Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Opodo is a joint selling agency set up by competitors
                                                                          representing most of the airline sector and provides, according
                         (Case T-59/03)
                                                                          to the applicants, a significant opportunity for those airlines
                                                                          to align their prices. The applicants claim that the Commission
                        (2003/C 101/85)                                   made a manifest error of assessment in reaching its conclusion
                                                                          that the undertakings will ensure that Opodo is not used for
                                                                          the exchange of commercially sensitive information and that
                  (Language of the case: English)                         Opodo will not be used as a vehicle for the shareholders to
                                                                          coordinate their competitive behaviour. The applicants invoke
                                                                          furthermore an infringement of the obligation of the Com-
                                                                          mission to investigate complaints with due diligence, an
                                                                          infringement of the applicant’s right to receive a response to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 its complaint, and a manifest error of assessment with respect
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                to the distortion of competition in the distribution of airline
European Communities on 19 February 2003 by TQ3 Travel                    tickets under Article 81(1) EC Treaty.
Solutions GmbH, Bremen, Germany, and TQ3 Travel Solutions
EMEA GmbH, Bremen, Germany, represented by Dr Thomas
Jestaedt, Mr Christopher Thomas and Dr Thomas Loest,
Lawyers.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the Commission failed to address
                                                                          the specific concern in the complaint that the Opodo infringed
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 81(1) EC Treaty because it was intended to and would
                                                                          have the effect of enabling the airlines to secure joint control
                                                                          of the distribution of airline tickets, forcing independent travel
—     annul the Commission decision of 9 December 2002                    agencies out of the market.
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint in Case COMP/
      A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Lim-
      ited;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.                  Finally, the applicants invoke an infringement of the obligation
                                                                          of the Commission to investigate complaints with due dili-
                                                                          gence, an error of law and a manifest error of assessment with
                                                                          respect to discrimination under Article 82(2) EC Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants are active in the travel agency business,                  According to the applicants, the Commission failed to investi-
especially for business passenger air transport services and              gate with due diligence the price comparisons provided in the
connected services.                                                       complaint showing apparent discrimination. The applicants
                                                                          claim the Commission made an error of law in taking the
                                                                          position that the denial of lower priced tickets might be
                                                                          justified by the fact that the applicants focus on business
On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up                  travellers and made an error of assessment when rejecting the
Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the             relevance of the price comparisons.
largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission.
Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out
the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the
intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture, one of
the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of


title: Case C-40/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 January 2017 — Fashion ID GmbH & Co.KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 January 2017 — Fashion ID GmbH & Co.KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV
   (Case C-40/17)
   (2017/C 112/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fashion ID GmbH & Co.KG

      Defendant: Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the rules in Articles 22, 23 and 24 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) preclude national legislation which, in addition to the powers of intervention conferred on the data-protection authorities and the remedies available to the data subject, grants public-service associations the power to take action against the infringer in the event of an infringement in order to safeguard the interests of consumers?
               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

               2.

               In a case such as the present one, in which someone has embedded a programming code in his website which causes the user’s browser to request content from a third party and, to this end, transmits personal data to the third party, is the person embedding the content the ‘controller’ within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) if that person is himself unable to influence this data- processing operation?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data to be interpreted as meaning that it definitively regulates liability and responsibility in such a way that it precludes civil claims against a third party who, although not a ‘controller’, nonetheless creates the cause for the processing operation, without influencing it?

               4.

               Whose ‘legitimate interests’, in a situation such as the present one, are the decisive ones in the balancing of interests to be undertaken pursuant to Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC? Is it the interests in embedding third-party content or the interests of the third party?

               5.

               To whom must the consent to be declared under Articles 7(a) and 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC be made in a situation such as that in the present case?

               6.

               Does the duty to inform under Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC also apply in a situation such as that in the present case to the operator of the website who has embedded the content of a third party and thus creates the cause for the processing of personal data by the third party?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-285/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity produced from renewable energy sources and energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after bringing the action — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new factors — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/18

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
   (Case T-285/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity produced from renewable energy sources and energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after bringing the action - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new factors - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 245/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented initially by: A. Reuter, C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, K. Kindereit, R. Busch, A. Hohler and T. Woltering, and subsequently by: A. Reuter, C. Bürger, T. Christner and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of electricity from renewable sources and energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The application to amend the form of order sought to refer to Commission Decision C(2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 concerning State aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of electricity from renewable sources and energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               4.

               Wirschaftsvereinigung Stahl and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-178/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/55

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss v Commission
   (Case T-178/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/66)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH (Mülheim-an-der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               3.

               Friedrich Wilhelms-Hütte Eisenguss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-546/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 December 2009 — Aurubis Balgaria v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 December 2009 — Aurubis Balgaria v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia
   (Case C-546/09)
   2010/C 80/16
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven Administrativen Sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aurubis Balgaria

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are national courts to interpret Article 232(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) as meaning that customs authorities may charge interest on arrears in respect of the amount of additional customs debts only in relation to the period following entry in the accounts, communication to the debtor and expiry of the period laid down by the customs authority pursuant to Article 222(1)(a) of the regulation for payment of the additional customs debts?

               2.

               Is Article 214(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted, in the absence of corresponding provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, (2) as meaning that national authorities may not charge compensatory interest in respect of the period between the time of the original customs declaration and the time of the subsequent entry in the accounts?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 to be interpreted as meaning that, where there are no national legal provisions which provide expressly, in the event of subsequent entry in the accounts, for an increase in the customs duty or another national penalty equal to the amount that would have been charged as interest on arrears in respect of the period between the time at which the customs debt was incurred and the time at which the subsequent entry in the accounts was made, Community law does not permit national courts to effect such an increase or impose such a penalty?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case C-16/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2016 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2015 in Case T-721/14 Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/14

         Appeal brought on 11 January 2016 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2015 in Case T-721/14 Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

   (Case C-16/16 P)
   (2016/C 145/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-721/14 in its entirety;

               —

               declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

               —

               rule on the merits;

               —

               declare the applications to intervene lodged by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic to be admissible; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   First ground of appeal: infringement of the principles of allocation of powers, loyalty and institutional balance, and misapplication of the conditions set out in Article 263 TFEU.
   Second ground of appeal: infringement of the reciprocity of the principle of loyalty and undermining of the position of the Member State as a privileged applicant with a view to safeguarding its prerogatives.
   Third ground of appeal: incorrect interpretation of the legal consequences of the recommendation with respect to Belgium.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 January 1997 in Case C-143/95 P Commission of the European Communities v. Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda (Socurte) and Others (Appeal - European Social Fund - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

text:
22 . 2 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 54/7
2 . The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber )
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                                               of 9 January 1997
                                                                        in Case C-255/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Consiglio di Stato ): S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas
                                                                                v. Regione Veneto ( 1 )
                                                                        (Aid to promote the extensification of agricultural
                                                                        production — Calculation of reduction in output —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Reference period)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                           ( 97/C 54/ 12 )
                        of 9 January 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-143/95 P Commission of the European
Communities v. Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda
                    ( Socurte ) and Others (')
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Appeal — European Social Fund — Time-limit for                                   published in the European Court Reports)
bringing proceedings — Infringement of essential
                   procedural requirements)                             In Case C-255/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                             ( 97/C 54/ 11 )                            of the EEC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato ( Italy ) for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas and
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        Regione Veneto — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on
                                                                        improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ( OJ No
                                                                        L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ), as amended by Council
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987 ( OJ No
          published in the European Court Reports)                      L 167, 26 . 6 . 1987, p. 1 ), and as both amended by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1094/88 of 25 April 1988
                                                                        ( OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p. 28 ), and of Commission
In Case C-143/95 P : Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and                    laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    promote the extensification of production ( OJ No L 361 ,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     29 . 12 . 1988 , p. 13 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
( First Chamber ) of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 Socurte and Others v.                        Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B.
Commission ( 1995 ) ECR 11-503 , seeking to have that                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        9 March 1997 in which it has ruled :
being: Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda ( Socurte ),
Revestimentos de Cortina Lda ( Quavi ), now known as
Estudos e Projectos Lda ( Esprocil ), and Sociedade                     Article 18 (b) (3) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/
Transformadora de Carnes Lda ( Stec ), now known as                     85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of
Estudos e Projectos Lda (J.A.P. ), represented by Carlos                agricultural structures, as amended by Council Regulation
Botelho Moniz and Antonio Magalhães Cardoso, — the                      (EEC) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987, and as both amended
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                     by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1094/88 of 25 April
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur),                   1988, and Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Commission Regulation
C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                     (EEC) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988 laying down
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has                 detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to promote the
given a judgment on 9 January 1997, in which it:                        extensification of production must be interpreted as not
                                                                        allowing a Member State, where there has been a drop in
                                                                        output during the intermediate period between the end of
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                              the reference period and the beginning of the period of the
                                                                        undertaking, to make the grant of aid for 'extensification '
                                                                        in any case conditional on output achieved during the
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                   intermediate period being reduced, during the period of
      to pay the cost.                                                  the undertaking, by an amount corresponding to at least
                                                                        20% of output during the reference period.
(') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .


               10.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/8

         Action brought on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-23/15)
   (2015/C 410/07)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantion, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 11 April 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 February 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected, as referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Acts within the time prescribed.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2002 in Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child and education allowances paid to the parent awarded custody of the child — Refusal to grant the other parent payment of the allowances for the purpose of calculating tax rebate and expatriation allowance — Default interest)

text:
25.1.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/33
O. Slusny, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                1.     Dismisses the application.
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the implied                   2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the
decision of the office responsible for settling claims of
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
30 November 2000 refusing to reimburse expenses relating to
medicinal preparations prescribed by the doctor providing
treatment — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                                of 12 November 2002
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                             (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child and edu-
                                                                             cation allowances paid to the parent awarded custody of the
                                                                             child — Refusal to grant the other parent payment of the
                                                                             allowances for the purpose of calculating tax rebate and
                                                                                expatriation allowance — Default interest)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/63)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                       of 5 November 2002
                                                                             In Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official
                                                                             working for the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-205/01: André Ronsse v Commission of the                           residing in Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             L. Levi, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance —                            J. Currall) — First an application for annulment of the decision
                    Recovery of sum overpaid)                                of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant, in
                                                                             respect of the period running from October 2000 to July
                                                                             2001, the dependent child and education allowances for the
                           (2003/C 19/62)                                    purpose of calculating tax abatement and the expatriation
                                                                             allowance and, second, a claim for default interest on the
                                                                             amounts improperly recovered or not paid — the Court of
                    (Language of the case: French)                           First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                                                                             Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Pling-
                                                                             ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             12 November 2002, in which it:
In Case T-205/01: André Ronsse, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented               1.     annuls the decision of the Commission, as evidenced by
by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                       the applicant’s salary slip for October 2000, refusing him
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                               entitlement to dependent child and education allowances to take
(Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur)                       into account for purposes of tax abatement and expatriation
— application for, first, annulment of the decisions of the                         allowance since July 1999, as amended by the Commission’s
Commission contained in letters of 9 and 23 November 2000                           decision of 16 July 2001, insofar as the latter decision takes
and in so far as necessary in the letter of 15 January 2002 and                     account of the apportionment of the entitlement to the
the implied rejection of his complaint lodged on 8 February                         allowances in issue and of the benefits under them only in
2001, all relating to repayment of EUR 22 443,07 correspond-                        respect of the future.
ing to the household allowance paid to the applicant from
1 January 1994 to 1 November 2000 and, secondly, reim-                       2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant:
bursement of the amounts withheld from his pension since
December 2000, together with interest at the statutory rate —                       —     default interest, as from November 2000, on the capital
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                                  amount of EUR 1 193,85 and, for each month from
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                              December 2000 and until September 2001,
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                             EUR 1 200 each month until those capital amounts are
judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                                                 repaid to him;
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/34                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
       —     default interest in respect of the benefits accruing to the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             applicant under the allowances in issue, for each month
             from October 2000 until the date on which the decision
             of 16 July 2001 takes effect, until full payment of the
             amounts due.                                                                           of 25 October 2002
3.     orders the rate of default interest to be calculated on the basis
       of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main               in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
       refinancing operations, applicable in the period in question,                             European Communities ( 1)
       plus two points.
4.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                             ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                     Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring
                                                                             a concentration incompatible with the common market —
                                                                                Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/65)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-5/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common                       In Case T-80/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam
market — Rights of the defence — Horizontal and vertical                     (Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-
effects — Foreseeable conglomerate effects — Leveraging —                    broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission
   Potential competition — General effect of reinforcement)                  of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
                                                                             P. Hellström): Application for annulment of the Commission
                            (2003/C 19/64)                                   Decision of 30 January 2002 setting out measures in order to
                                                                             restore conditions of effective competition pursuant to Article
                     (Language of the case: English)                         8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
                                                                             1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
                                                                             (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel), the Court of
                                                                             First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
In Case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam                     President, J. Pirrung and N. J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission                  25 October 2002, in which it:
of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
P. Hellström): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001 declaring a
concentration to be incompatible with the common market                      (1) Annuls the Commission Decision of 30 January 2002
and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra                                  setting out measures in order to restore conditions of effective
Laval/Sidel), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                          competition pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and N.J. For-                     (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
wood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     concentrations between undertakings (Case No COMP/
has given a judgment on 25 October 2002, in which it:                               M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of
                                                                             (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
       30 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible
       with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case                           of the applicant, including those relating to the interim
       No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);                                         proceedings.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs of the applicant.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-550/07 P P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise (AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter, International Bar Association (Appeal — Competition — Measures of inquiry — Commission’s powers of investigation — Legal professional privilege — Employment relationship between a lawyer and an undertaking — Exchanges of e-mails)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise (AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter, International Bar Association
   (Case C-550/07 P P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Measures of inquiry - Commission’s powers of investigation - Legal professional privilege - Employment relationship between a lawyer and an undertaking - Exchanges of e-mails)
   2010/C 301/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd (represented by: M. Mollica, M. van der Woude and C. Swaak, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and X. Lewis, Agents), Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (represented by: J. Flynn QC), Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (represented by: O. Brouwer and C. Schillemans, advocaten), European Company Lawyers Association (AEJE) (represented by: M. Dolmans and K. Nordlander, avocats, J. Temple Lang, solicitor), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter (G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Hull, solicitor), International Bar Association (represented by: J. Buhart and I. Michou, avocats)

      Intervener in support of the applicanst: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson and E. Jenkinson, Agents, and M. Hoskins, Barrister), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, D. O’Donnell, SC and R. Casey, BL), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and M. de Grave, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission, by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Decision C(2003) 1533 final of 8 May 2003 rejecting a request for legal professional privilege for certain documents seised in the course of a an investigation ordered in accordance with Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 (Case COMP/E-1/38.589)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Conseil des barreaux européens, the Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, the European Company Lawyers Association, the American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter and the International Bar Association to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the remainder of the costs of the proceedings to be born jointly and severally by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 May 2005 in Case T-485/04 Agence de coopération des bibliothèques et centres de documentation en Bretagne (COBB) v Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility — Documents not published or notified — Obligation on interested party to request copy within reasonable time-limit — Action brought out of time)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 May 2005
   in Case T-485/04 Agence de coopération des bibliothèques et centres de documentation en Bretagne (COBB) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Inadmissibility - Documents not published or notified - Obligation on interested party to request copy within reasonable time-limit - Action brought out of time)
   (2005/C 205/42)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-485/04: Agence de coopération des bibliothèques et centres de documentation en Bretagne (COBB), established in Rennes (France), represented by J.-P. Martin, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 September 2003 excluding the operation ‘Réseau des périodiques de Bretagne, année 1999’ (Brittany Periodicals Network 1999) from the expenditure eligible under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme named ‘Objectif 5b Bretagne 1994-1999’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of M. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The application shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.03.2005.


title: Case T-367/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/52

         Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)
   (Case T-367/16)
   (2016/C 305/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE’ — Application for registration No 11 988 144

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 in Case R 2943/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Opposition Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5);

               —

               dismiss the intervener’s opposition of 12 November 2013 regarding EU trade mark No 11 306 545 and German trade mark No 302 010 023 903 (Case B002269325);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-91/08: Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Pleijte v Commission

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Pleijte v Commission
   (Case F-91/08)
   (2009/C 6/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Johanna Gerdina Pleijte (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Action for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to include the applicant's name on the provisional list of preselected officials in the context of the 2007 certification exercise and to subtract the length of a period of leave on personal grounds from the 10-year period which was taken into account in order to establish her length of service for the purposes of that certification procedure
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 7 August 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               Annul the appointing authority's decision not to include the applicant's name on the provisional list of preselected officials in the context of the 2007 certification exercise;

               —

               Add the applicant's name to the list of preselected officials in sufficient time to enable her to take part in the training programme provided for by Article 6 of the GIP;

               —

               Amend the methodology in the administrative notice of 8 January 2008 adopted on the basis of Commission Decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 on the general provisions for the implementation of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations as regards the part relating to the taking into account of experience within the institutions;

               —

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


title: Case T-110/03: Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union

text:
21.6.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/39
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 9 April 2003                                  —     annul, on the basis of art. 230 of EC Treaty, Council
                                                                                Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer
in Case T-217/01: Forum des migrants de l’Union euro-                            adopted by the Council on the 21st of January 2003 to
   péenne v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          the confirmatory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by
                                                                                fax on the 11 of December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of
                                                                                the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the
(Community financial support — Operating costs —                                 applicant’s counsel on January 23, 2003.
Decision to terminate financial support — Principle of sound
financial management — Interpretation of the conditions of
support — Right to a fair hearing — Protection of legitimate               —     require the respondent party to bear the costs of suit.
                            expectations)
                          (2003/C 146/70)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-217/01, Forum des migrants de l’Union européenne,                The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
having its registered office in Brussels (Belgium), represented            Case T-47/03 Sison against Council and Commission (1),
initially by E. Degrez and subsequently by N. Crama, lawyers,              pursues the annulment of the defendants decision not to allow
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                          him access to all the documents which formed the basis of the
A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and L. Parpala): Application for annul-                Council Decision 2002/848/EC ( 2), by which the applicant
ment of the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to                       himself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the
terminate the financial support granted to the applicant under             list pertinent to Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 ( 3), as
Article A0-3040 of the Community budget, the Court of First                well as access to any information regarding which Member
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,               States provided documents mentioned in the contested
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-               Decision. The applicant also asked to be informed about the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003,           rules and criteria applied by the Council regarding sensitive
in which it:                                                               documents that shall be made public following Article 9,
                                                                           point 6, of Regulation 1049/2001 ( 4).
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the          The Council’s position was based on Article 4(a), first and third
       defendant.                                                          points, of the Regulation 1049/2001. According to the
                                                                           defendant, the disclosure of information with regard to
                                                                           combatting terrorism, which is in the possession of the
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                               Member States authorities, could give the persons, entities or
                                                                           groups who are the subject of this information, the opportunity
                                                                           to threaten the efforts of these authorities and thus undermine
                                                                           the protection of public interest as regards public security.
                                                                           With reference to the Member States that provided sensitive
                                                                           documents, the Council stated that the ‘originator authority’ is
                                                                           opposed to the disclosure of the requested information. About
Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison                        the rules concerning sensitive documents, the Council referred
          against the Council of the European Union                        to the Council decision 2001/264/CE adopting the Council’s
                                                                           security regulations.
                          (Case T-110/03)
                          (2003/C 146/71)                                  In support of its application, the applicant submits:
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     Failure of motivation and violation of the principle of
                                                                                sound administration.
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    —     Violation of the principles enshrined in Article 6 ECHR
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       and especially of the right to be informed promptly, in a
Communities on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,                       language which the applicant understands and in detail,
the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,                       of the nature and cause of the accusation, as well as of
Mr H. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.                                         the principle of proportionality.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the               Pleas in law and main arguments
right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him
cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as
regards public security and international relations. Considering            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of                   munity trade mark:
interest is in his favour.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLSPORT’ —
                                                                            sought:                      Application No 816 512 for
( 1) Not published in the OJ yet.                                                                        goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
( 2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)                                       and 25.
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
     L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).                                           sign cited in the oppo-
( 3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive         sition proceedings:
     measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
     to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).                Mark or sign cited in        Community            trade      mark
( 4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May        opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
     2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
                                                                                superposed on an L, both in
     and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
                                                                                English characters.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
                                                                            sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                          Pleas in law:                Incorrect         application      of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                       No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
                          (Case T-117/03)
                          (2003/C 146/72)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
                                                                            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                          (Case T-118/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by                                                (2003/C 146/73)
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
       Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R95/2002-1, and                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—      Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the           4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
       costs arising from the proceedings and from Case No 95/              in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
       2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.                     R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.


title: Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du Voitel v. Council of the European Union (Case T-105/98)

text:
26.9.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 299/37
    down a double ceiling on the number of years to be              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    credited which is not envisaged by the legislature,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð that unjust enrichment has occurred in this case since,
    by entering as income in the Community budget that              The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    part of the amount not taken into account under the             raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    Community pension scheme, the defendant has
    enriched itself without any legal basis.                        (1) See page 36 of this Offical Journal.
Finally, the applicant contends that the principle of equal
treatment has been infringed. The Commission as well as
the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions refund to
officials assigned to their service that part of the amount         Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
of the rights transferred not taken into account in the                        Voitel v. Council of the European Union
Community pension scheme. The Parliament does not                                            (Case T-105/98)
restrict the number of years to be credited and therefore
may take into account a number of years of pensionable                                        (98/C 299/67)
service far exceeding the period of affiliation to national
schemes. Only the Council restricts the years to be                                 (Language of the case: French)
credited and refuses to refund that part of the amount not
taken into account in the Community pension scheme.
The difference in treatment accorded by the various                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
Community institutions to officials who are in the same             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
position thus infringes the prohibition of discrimination.          Communities on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
                                                                    Voitel, of Vossem-Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                    1. declare the action admissible and well-founded;
                       (Case T-104/98)
                        (98/C 299/66)                               2. allow the action, annul the disputed decision and
                                                                         order the Council to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant, an official employed by the Council,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          challenges that institution's decision of 27 April 1998
Communities on 13 July 1988 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,                 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,              of the General Secretariat of the Council may be allowed
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                   access to classified information held by the Council (1).
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        The first citation in the preamble to that decision refers to
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,              Article 151(3) of the Treaty establishing the European
30, rue de Cessange.                                                Community and the third citation refers to the declaration
                                                                    in the Annex to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam
                                                                    on enhanced cooperation between the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         and the Western European Union.
                                                                    The applicant points out that the decision requires that
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing             officials authorised to have access to classified information
    the request for refund of that part of the pension              obtain specific permission which is granted after security
    rights transferred to the Community pensions regime             screening has been carried out by the competent national
    which was not taken into consideration in the                   authorities of the Member States. The decision challenged
    calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into         by the applicant also seeks to impose new obligations and
    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the          confer new prerogatives on the appointing authority and
    Staff Regulations,                                              to limit its jurisdiction.
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/38              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
In support of his application he argues, inter alia:                Communities on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur, resident in
                                                                    Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Ð that the author of the decision lacked jurisdiction or            Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
    that the decision lacks any constitutional or legal basis       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    in that the defendant is, on the basis of a simple              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
    declaration which does not constitute an amendment              Cessange.
    or provision having the force of primary law,
    purporting to enact a piece of delegated legislation            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    which it is not constitutionally authorised to adopt.
    Furthermore, the applicant argues that there is a
                                                                    Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
    discrepancy between the scope of the declaration,
                                                                         the request for refund of that part of the pension
    which presumably constitutes the basis of the disputed
                                                                         rights transferred to the Community pensions regime
    decision, and the decision itself, in that the decision is
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
    general in nature,
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
Ð breach of Articles 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Staff                      Staff Regulations,
    Regulations in so far as the disputed decision institutes
    security screening by the national authorities and
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    withdraws the appointing authority's autonomous
    power to adopt a decision in the event that the
    national authorities' opinion is negative and places            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    officials and employees affected by such screening in a
    position of dependence. Similarly, both Article 23 of           The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    the Staff Regulations and the Protocol on Privileges            raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    and Immunities of the European Communities have,
    according to the applicant, been ignored in so far as
    they provide for a legal system of official immunity in         (1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.
    relation to the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to
    officials,
Ð breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far
    as the disputed decision provides for the constitution
    of a security file in addition to the single file referred      Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
    to in Article 26,                                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-110/98)
Ð breach of Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single                                    (98/C 299/69)
    Council and a single Commission of the European
    Communities of 8 April 1965, and of the Council
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    decision of 23 June 1981 establishing a concertation
    procedure, breach of essential procedural requirements
    and hierarchy of legal sources in so far as the disputed        An action against the Commission of the European
    decision, which is a simple decision, implicitly                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    purports to amend several provisions of the Staff               Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    Regulations which are statutory in nature. In                   by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    particular, there was no prior proposal by the                  Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
    Commission neither were the institutions consulted.             Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                    10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
(1) OJ L 140, 12.5.1998, p. 12.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998
                                                                         relating to financial interventions from Germany to
                                                                         the coal industry in 1997, which purports to authorise
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against                   Germany to grant aid to its coal industry, and
             the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-107/98)                              Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
                        (98/C 299/68)                                    including those of the applicant.
               (Language of the case: French)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant is an independently owned coal-mining
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          company incorporated in England and Wales. Its major


title: Case C-146/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti v Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti v Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi
   (Case C-146/14)
   2014/C 175/35
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

      Defendant: Bashir Mohamed Ali Mahdi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals, in conjunction with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a judicial review and effective [legal protection], to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           a)

                           where an administrative authority is obliged under the national law of a Member State to conduct a monthly review of detention without there being an express obligation to take administrative action and where it has to submit to the court ex officio a list of third-country nationals detained beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum length of the initial detention due to obstacles to removal, the administrative authority is obliged, on the expiry of the period laid down in the individual decision to detain for the first time, to either pronounce an express detention review measure having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under European (‘EU’) law or to release the person in question?

                           b)

                           where the national law of the Member State provides for the courts to have the power, on the expiry of the maximum period for initial detention laid down under national law, to order an extension of the period of detention for removal purposes, to replace the same with a less coercive measure or to order the release of the third-country national, the court is obliged in a situation such as that in the main proceedings to examine the legality of a detention review measure that gives the legal and factual reasons for the need to extend the period of detention and the length thereof by deciding on the merits on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question?

                           c)

                           it permits the court, having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under EU law, to examine the legality of a detention review measure that only gives reasons for which the decision to remove a third-country national cannot be implemented, by deciding the merits of the dispute in a decision on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question solely on the basis of facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority and facts and objections stated by the third-country national?

               2.

               Is Article 15(1) and (6) of Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted, in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings, as meaning that the autonomous reason for extending detention provided for under national law, namely that ‘the person in question (…) [has] no identity documents’, is permissible from the point of view of EU law as subsumable under both cases in Article 15(6) of the directive where, under the national law of the Member State, due to the said circumstances it can be assumed that there is reason to believe that the person in question will attempt to circumvent implementation of the removal decision, which in turn presents a risk of absconding within the meaning of the law of that Member State?

               3.

               Is Article 15(1)(a) and (b) and Article 15(6) of Directive 2008/115, in conjunction with recitals 2 and 13 in the preamble to the directive with regard to respect for the fundamental rights and dignity of third-country nationals and the application of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings as permitting the conclusion that there is a reasonable risk of absconding due to the fact that the person in question has no identity documents, has crossed the state boundary illegally and has said that he will not return to his country of origin, even though he has previously completed a statement as to his voluntary return and provided correct details of his identity, when these circumstances fall within the concept of a ‘risk of absconding’ in the case of the addressee of a return decision within the meaning of the directive, which is defined under national law as reason to believe, based on the facts, that the person in question will attempt to circumvent implementation of the return decision?

               4.

               Is Article 15(1)(a) and (b) and Article 15(4) and (6) of Directive 2008/115, in conjunction with recitals 2 and 13 in the preamble to the directive with regard to respect for the fundamental rights and dignity of third-country nationals and the application of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted in a situation such as that pertaining in the main proceedings as meaning that:

                           a)

                           the third-country national does not demonstrate cooperation in the preparation of implementation of the decision to return him to his country of origin if he states verbally to an embassy official of that country that he does not wish to return to his country of origin even though he has previously completed a statement as to his voluntary return and provided correct details of his identity and there are delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from a third country and there is a reasonable prospect of implementation of the return decision, if in these circumstances the embassy of that country does not issue the document necessary for the person in question to travel to his country of origin even though it has confirmed the identity of the person in question?

                           b)

                           in the event of the release of a third-country national on account of the absence of an adequate prospect of implementation of a removal decision where that third-country national has no identity documents, has crossed the state border illegally and states that he does not wish to return to his country of origin, it is to be assumed that the Member State is under an obligation to issue a temporary document on the status of the person in question if the embassy of the country of origin does not in these circumstances issue the document required for the person in question to travel to his country of origin even though it has confirmed the identity of the person in question?

      (1)  OJ L 348, p. 98.


C 204/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/98 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-23/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/78)                                                         (1999/C 204/82)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 26 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-11/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling       the register of Case C-23/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Abdulreza Kazemi              from the Tribunale di Genova): Palmira Ieropoli, Giovanni
Nava v Confcommercio.                                                  Sgambellone v Banca Carige SpA.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-72/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/83)
                        (1999/C 204/79)
                                                                       By order of 27 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               the register of Case C-72/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the register of Case C-342/98: Commission of the European              from the Landesvergabeamt Tirol): Firma Ortner GmbH v
Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                               Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-346/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/80)                                                         (1999/C 204/84)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-346/98: Commission of the European              the register of Case C-25/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Communities v Ireland.                                                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl v
                                                                       Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-419/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-26/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/81)                                                         (1999/C 204/85)
By order of 23 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-419/98 (reference for a preliminary             the register of Case C-26/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Marcella             ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Giolfo e C. Srl v
Moretti v Baoco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA.                                 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                              (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: Case C-611/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-375/10 Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/26

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-375/10 Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-611/13 P)
   2014/C 52/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl., Hansa Belgium, Hansa Austria GmbH (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann and S. Cappellari, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               I.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-375/10 Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v Commission and make a definitive determination as follows:

                           1.

                           annul the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010, notified to the appellants on 30 June 2010, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as it concerns the appellants;
                           in the alternative,
                           reduce the amount of the fine;

                           2.

                           order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

               II.

               in the further alternative,
               set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants first of all allege infringement by the General Court of the EU-law principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. In particular, the General Court failed to take into account the fact that the recast version of the Commission’s Guidelines for fines in 2006 brought with it a radical change to the general method of calculation, particularly for undertakings with a limited range of products and services. As a consequence of its legally defective approach, the General Court failed to carry out its comprehensive duty of verification with regard to the setting of the fine by the respondent, or alternatively did so only in a legally deficient manner.
   In addition, the appellants allege that the General Court provided insufficient reasons for its comments on the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and to the offence. In particular, the General Court failed entirely to examine the leading judgment of the Eighth Chamber in Case T-211/08 (1) and the evidently changed view of the Commission in its order in the proceedings in COMP/39452, although the appellants had set out detailed submissions on this issue at the hearing.
   Finally, the appellants allege infringement of the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In assessing the Commission’s action in not granting a reduction in the fine in its decision, contrary to the assurance which it had given during the administrative procedure, the General Court failed to have regard for the overriding significance which is attached to loyal cooperation with the Commission within the context of its notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

      (1)  Judgment of 16 June 2011, Putters International v European Commission [2011] ECR II-3729.