title: Case C-402/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ioan Tatu v Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului (Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax charged on first registration of motor vehicles — Neutrality of tax between imported second-hand motor vehicles and similar vehicles already on the domestic market)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Ioan Tatu v Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului
   (Case C-402/09) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax charged on first registration of motor vehicles - Neutrality of tax between imported second-hand motor vehicles and similar vehicles already on the domestic market)
   2011/C 160/05
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioan Tatu

      Defendants: Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu, Ministerul Mediului

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Sibiu — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — National legislation subjecting first registration of those vehicles to payment of an environment tax, whereas second-hand vehicles already on the national market are exempted from payment of that tax on a subsequent registration — Compatibility of the national legislation with Article 90 EC — Obstacle to the free movement of goods

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way that it discourages the placing in circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-222/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-222/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/115)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-2/10: Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — De Lucia v OHIM — Galbani (De Lucia La natura pratica del gusto)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/35

         Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — De Lucia v OHIM — Galbani (De Lucia La natura pratica del gusto)
   (Case T-2/10) (1)

   2011/C 55/64
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-343/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/10

         Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-343/08)
   (2008/C 272/16)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová, N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Commission asks the Court to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the domestic legal provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (1), and, in particular, by failing to implement Article 8, Article 9 in its entirety, Articles 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 22(1) thereof;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the Directive in the domestic legal order expired on 23 September 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10.


title: Case T-312/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/42

         Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)
   (Case T-312/16)
   (2016/C 305/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘CHATKA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 876 349

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 2870/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-297/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 4 June 2003 in the case of Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach against Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst

text:
C 226/6                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.9.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 4 June 2003                          Finanzgericht by order of that Court of 25 April 2003 in
in the case of Sozialhilfeverband Rohrbach against                         the case of Honeywell Aerospace GmbH against
Arbeiterkammer Oberösterreich and Österreichischer                                     Hauptzollamt Gießen — Fulda Office
  Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst
                                                                                (Case C-300/03)
                          (Case C-297/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/09)
                         (2003/C 226/08)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     European Communities by order of the Hessisches
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                  Finanzgericht (Hessian Finance Court) of 25 April 2003,
(Supreme Court) of 4 June 2003, received at the Court Registry             received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2003, for a prelimi-
on 10 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                   nary ruling in the case of Honeywell Aerospace GmbH against
Sozialhilfeverband       Rohrbach against Arbeiterkammer                   Hauptzollamt Gießen — Fulda Office — on the following
Oberösterreich and Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund,                     questions:
Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst on the following questions:
1.   Is a limited liability company governed by private law,               1.   Is a customs debt deemed, under Article 215(2) or the first
     whose sole shareholder is a social assistance association                  indent of Article 215(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)
     governed by public law (local authority association) and                   No 2913/92 (1), as applicable until 9 May 1999, to have
     which has been entrusted with tasks of a private sector                    been incurred at the place where the customs authorities
     authority (social assistance by way of the operation of a                  conclude that the goods are in a situation in which a
     workplace for disabled persons), nevertheless still to be                  customs debt is incurred (Article 215(2)) or at the place
     regarded as a ‘State entity’, with the effect that Article 3               where the goods were placed under the customs procedure
     (1), in conjunction with Article 1(1)(c), of Council                       [which is not discharged] (first indent of Article 215(3))
     Directive 77/187/EEC (1), as amended by Council                            even if a consignment placed under the external
     Directive 98/50/EC (2) (now Council Directive 2001/23/EC),                 Community transit procedure is not presented at the office
     which was not correctly transposed into national law, is                   of destination and the place where the offence or irregu-
     directly applicable against it if, under a contract of transfer,           larity occurred cannot be established, but the customs
     which is subject only to the agreement of the association's                authorities have failed, contrary to the last part of
     board, the social assistance association's shareholding is to              Article 378(1) and the first sentence of Article 379(2) of
     be transferred to a purely private limited liability company?              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2), as appli-
                                                                                cable until 30 June 2001, to indicate in the notification
                                                                                under Article 379(1) of that regulation the time-limit by
     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:                 which proof must be furnished to the office of departure of
                                                                                the regularity of the transit operation or the place where
                                                                                the offence or irregularity was actually committed?
2.   As a ‘State entity’ within the meaning of the case-law of the
     Court of Justice of the European Communities, can a social
     assistance association (local authority association) which
     transfers its operations itself rely on the direct application        2.   If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
     of Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 1(1)(c), of the
     Directive referred to in Question 1 against its employees,
     who are contesting the transfer of their employment con-
     tracts to a transferee (within the meaning of Question 1)                  Does the recovery of duty by the competent customs
     and who insist that their employment relationship with the                 authority under the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
     transferor continues to exist, where the provision of the                  Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as applicable until 30 June
     Directive referred to in Question 1 has not been correctly                 2001, require the customs authorities to have indicated in
     transposed, with the effect that the employment contracts                  the notification under Article 379(1) of that regulation the
     are deemed to have been transferred to the transferee? In                  time-limit by which proof must be furnished to the office
     that connection, is it material that the transferor ‘State                 of departure of the regularity of the transit operation or
     entity’ has no legislative competence to transpose a direc-                the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
     tive into national law, that competence lying with a                       committed?
     superior legislative body (the Land)?
(1) OJ L 61 [1977], p. 26.                                                 (1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
(2) OJ L 201 [1998], p. 88.                                                (2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.


title: Removal from the register of Case C-415/92

text:
3 . 6 . 95                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 137/ 15
the EC Treaty in so far as it penalizes in general the                            Removal from the register of Case C-4 15/92 ( )
importation by private individuals of medicaments or, as in                                            ( 95/C 137/33 )
this case , spectacles from other Member States ?
                                                                           By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-415/92 : Italian Republic
                                                                           v. Commission of the European Communities .
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                           ( t ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 .
                              ( Case C-125/95 )
                                ( 95/C 137/32 )
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice on 11 April 1995 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Sergio de Carvalho, Legal                         Removal from the register of Case C-397/93 ( )
Advisers , acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                             ( 95/C 137/34 )
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , of its Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           By order of 16 February 1995 the President of the Court of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-397/93 ( reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
     period all the measures necessary to implement in                     Genova ): Voltri Terminal Europa SpA v. Giorgio Donati
     full :                                                                and Others .
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC (') of 28 January 1991                 (>) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
          concerning the animal health conditions governing
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
          products,
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
           and the placing on the market of live bivalve
           molluscs ,                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-52/94 ( ! )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/35 )
     — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC ( i ) of 22 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
          and the placing on the market of fishery products ,              By order of 16 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
           and                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-52/94 : Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC ( 4 ) of 16 June 1992                   v. Commission of the European Communities .
           laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels in           (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
           accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive
           91 /493 /EEC ,
— the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its
     obligations under the Treaty,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-89/94 (')
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                     ( 95/C 137/36 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-79/95 . The period prescribed for transposing the                   By order of 8 March 1995 the President of the Court of
Directives expired on 1 January 1993 .                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-89/94 : Commission of the
(')  OJ  No    L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                           European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(2)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(;)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .                            (M OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ  No    L 187, 7. 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .


title: Case C-368/05 P: Order of the Court of 8 December 2006 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Council decision determining the Community's position — Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Order of the Court of 8 December 2006 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-368/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Council decision determining the Community's position - Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community)
   (2007/C 82/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Curmi, J.-P. Hix and F. Florindo Gijón), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Forman and M. Wilderspin, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, which declared inadmissible an action for, first, annulment of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30) permitting Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, and also a declaration that the joint statement relating to the EEA Agreement regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 26 March 1999 (OJ 1999 C 185, p. 6), is unlawful and, second, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Polyelectrolyte Producers Group is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-200/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/35

         Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)
   (Case T-200/07)
   (2007/C 183/68)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o. o. (represented by D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1276/2006-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘222’ for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), in that, according to the applicant, the designation ‘222’ is neither descriptive nor non-distinctive for the goods referred to.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993, OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.


title: Case T-291/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Transdev and Others v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/41

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Transdev and Others v Commission
   (Case T-291/17)
   (2017/C 231/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Transdev (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Transdev Ile de France (Issy-les-Moulineaux), Transports rapides automobiles (TRA) (Villepinte, France) (represented by: F. Salat-Baroux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               principally, partially annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 relating to the aid scheme SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it states, in Article 1, that the regional aid scheme was ‘unlawfully’ implemented, although it concerned an existing aid scheme;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 relating to the aid scheme SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it states, in Article 1, that the regional aid scheme was unlawfully implemented, with respect to the period prior to 25 November 1998;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, raised as the principal claim, alleging that the regional aid scheme at issue was not unlawfully implemented, since it was not subject to the prior notification obligation. The regional aid scheme is an existing aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU and the provisions of Article 1(b) and Chapter VI of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9) (‘Regulation No 2015/1589’). According to the rules applicable to existing aid schemes, their implementation is not unlawful, since the Commission may only prescribe, where appropriate, appropriate measures to promote them or remove them with respect to the future.

               2.

               Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that the regional aid scheme did not constitute an existing aid scheme. According to the applicants, the Commission caused the contested decision to be unlawful by holding that the 10-year limitation period had been interrupted by an action brought in 2004 by the Syndicat autonome des transporteurs de voyageurs (Independent trade union for road passenger operators) (‘the SATV’) before the national court. Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589 provides that the 10-year limitation period is interrupted only by a measure taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission. The applicants claim that the initiation of an action before the national court by the SATV does not constitute a measure interrupting the limitation period for the purposes of that provision.


title: Case T-304/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — van der Aat and Others v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff — Weighting applicable to officials and agents employed in Varese — Articles 64 to 65a of the Staff Regulations — Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 — Duty to state reasons — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — van der Aat and Others v Commission
   (Case T-304/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Weighting applicable to officials and agents employed in Varese - Articles 64 to 65a of the Staff Regulations - Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 - Duty to state reasons - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2015/C 046/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Chris van der Aat (Besozzo, Italy) and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and D. Martin, and subsequently by J. Curall and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 in van der Aat and Others v Commission (F-111/11, ECR — SC, EU:F:2013:42), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Chris van der Aat and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case C-272/09 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2009 by KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2009 in Case T-127/04: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/29

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2009 by KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2009 in Case T-127/04: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-272/09 P)
   2009/C 220/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Rizza, M. Piergiovanni, avvocati, A. Winckler, avocat, T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment,

               —

               to the extent that it is possible, based on the facts before the Court, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of KME's Fine, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         or, in alternative, where the state of the proceedings does not so permit,

               —

               set aside the Judgment (including with respect to the CFI's order to KME to pay the costs) and refer the case back to the CFI.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By their first plea, the Appellants criticize the CFI for holding that the Commission demonstrated to a sufficient legal standard that the Level Wound Coils Arrangements had an impact on the relevant market and that, therefore, the Starting Amount of KME's Fine had to take such factor into account. In so reasoning and deciding to reject the first plea of KME's Application, the CFI infringed Community law and provided an illogical and inadequate statement of reasons. Furthermore, the CFI manifestly distorted the facts and evidence put before it by upholding the Commission's conclusion that the economic evidence provided by KME did not show that the infringement as a whole did not have any market impact.
   By their second plea, the Appellants criticize the CFI for approving the Commission's reference — in order to determine the size of the market affected by the infringement, for the purpose of establishing the gravity element of KME's Fine — to a market value that wrongly included the revenues from sales made in a separate upstream market from the ‘cartelized’ one, despite the fact that the cartel members were not vertically integrated in that upstream market. In so reasoning and deciding to reject the second plea of KME's Application, the CFI violated Community law and provided an inadequate statement of reasons.
   By their third plea, the Appellants criticize the CFI for rejecting the third plea of the Application, according to which the Commission misapplied the 1998 Fining Guidelines and infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by imposing the maximum percentage increase in the starting amount of KME's Fine on account of duration. In the Appellants’ view, the CFI infringed Community law and provided an obscure, illogical and inadequate statement of reasons by upholding the relevant part of the Decision.
   By their fourth plea, the Appellants claim that the CFI violated Community law by rejecting the fourth limb of the Application's fourth plea and upholding the relevant part of the Decision, in which the Commission denied KME the benefit of a fine reduction on account of its cooperation outside the scope of the 1996 Leniency Notice, in violation of the 1998 Fining Guidelines as well as the principles of fairness and equal treatment.
   By their fifth and last plea, the Appellants claim that the CFI violated Community law and the Appellants’ fundamental right to full and effective judicial review by failing to examine thoroughly and closely KME's arguments and showing a biased deference to the Commission's discretion.


7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-41/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Gestión de Activos Isorana (L’Wren Scott) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark L’Wren Scott — Earlier national word mark LOREN SCOTT — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — LS Fashion v OHIM — Gestión de Activos Isorana (L’Wren Scott)
   (Case T-41/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark L’Wren Scott - Earlier national word mark LOREN SCOTT - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LS Fashion, LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: R. Black and S. Davies, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Gestión de Activos Isorana, SL (La Orotava, Spain) (represented by: F. Brandolini Kujman, J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2011 (Case R 1584/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Gestión de Activos Isorana, SL, and LS Fashion, LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LS Fashion, LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-180/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 211/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.7.2000
     (C) In a situation such as that described in (A) or (B), is the     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         pledgee, the pledgor’s customer, the forwarder, the
         warehouse keeper or the carrier the ‘holder’ for the            — Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 (1) of
         purposes of this regulation?                                        29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for
                                                                             imports from the overseas countries and territories of
4. In the case of Tunisian olive oil falling within CN code                  sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
     1509 10, is the term ‘the import charge applicable in the
     Community of Twelve as at 31 December 1994’ within                  — Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3108/94
     invariably to be understood as meaning
     (A) the special levy of ECU 7,8 per 100 kilograms laid              Pleas in law and main arguments
         down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
         No 287/94 of 7 February 1994 or                                 — Infringement of Article 109(1) of OCT Decision
                                                                             91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
     (B) the levy of ECU 79 minus ECU 12,69, that is to say,                 overseas countries and territories with the European Econ-
         ECU 66,31 per 100 kilograms, as provided for in                     omic Community (2), as last amended by Decision
         Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94                    2000/169/EC (3). The Commission has manifestly miscon-
                                                                             strued the facts, in particular so far as concerns the amounts
     or                                                                      of OCT sugar products imported into the Community,
                                                                             the situation on the Community sugar market and the
     (C) does the answer to this question turn on whether the                consequences for Community market participants. The
         importation of Tunisian olive oil within the quota laid             grounds on which Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision
         down in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 287/94 was               makes application of the power to introduce safeguard
         still possible in the Member States of the Community of             measures dependent are not present here. The Commission
         Twelve without any difficulty even at the end of 1994               consequently erred in concluding that the importation of
         or                                                                  OCT sugar could lead to a serious deterioration in the
                                                                             sugar sector and that safeguard measures were justified
     (D) is the rate of duty to be determined in each case on the            under Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision;
         basis of whether, if importation into an EC Member
         State had been planned, the taxable person would have           — Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision:
         been able to acquire a (preferential) quota at the time
         when the transaction was concluded?                                 — The contested safeguard measure fails to take account
                                                                                of the preferential position enjoyed by the OCT vis-à-
5. If Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 3108/94 is                          vis the ACP States and non-member countries;
     understood as having the meaning set out at 4(b), would
     it be void because it infringed the principle of equal
                                                                             — In view of the far-reaching consequences which the
     treatment?
                                                                                safeguard measures have for the Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                                Aruba and the undertakings concerned, the Nether-
(1) OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42.                                                         lands take the view that the safeguard measures under
                                                                                challenge are disproportionate, or at any rate that the
                                                                                Commission, contrary to the obligation imposed on it,
                                                                                failed to take those consequences into account when
                                                                                reaching its decision;
                                                                             — In so far as safeguard measures are necessary, less
                                                                                restrictive safeguard measures are possible, in particular
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                               the provision of a minimum selling price;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                      — Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2553/97 in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 465/2000 infringes
                           (Case C-180/00)                                        the principle of proportionality set out in
                                                                                Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision, since the amount
                                                                                of security bears no relation to the amount of security
                          (2000/C 211/16)                                         for imports of sugar from ACP States and from non-
                                                                                member countries;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             — Misuse of powers: after the Council had, following protrac-
Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                             ted deliberation, voted unanimously, as required, to add
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-                 Article 108b to the OCT Decision by Decision 97/803/EC
pean Law Section in the Legal Service of the Ministry of                     — whereby the importation of sugar with ACP/OCT
Foreign Affairs, and Jantine van Bakel, of the Legal Service of              cumulation of origin was restricted — the importation of
that Ministry, The Hague, acting as Agents.                                  sugar with EC/OCT cumulation of origin and of mixtures
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 211/11
     of cocoa and sugar of OCT origin was possible without              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
     limitation on the basis of Article 6 of Annex II to the            de Paris (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 15 May 2000 in
     OCT Decision. The Commission seeks in Regulation                   the case of Edouard Balguerie, Bernard André Mercier
     No 465/2000 to impose a limit on an EC/OCT cumulation              and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties bearing civil liability,
     of origin upheld by the Council and thus seeks to avoid a          Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos Diffusion
     consequence which was clearly created by the OCT                   v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
     Decision and upheld by the Council;                                                                Public
— Infringement of Article 253 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-190/00)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1.                                                                          (2000/C 211/18)
(3) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 67.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 15 May 2000 by the
                                                                        Cour d’Appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) (Ninth
                                                                        Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 May
                                                                        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Edouard Balguerie,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-                  Bernard André Mercier and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties
richt Hamburg by order of that court of 3 May 2000 in                   bearing civil liability, Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos
the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt                  Diffusion v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
                             Hamburg                                    Public, on the following question:
                          (Case C-187/00)
                                                                        Do Commission Regulation No 4142/87 of 9 December
                          (2000/C 211/17)                               1987 (1) and the conditions imposed for its application in
                                                                        regard to imports of dates under the procedure for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  suspension of customs duties by reason of the end-use of
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                  the goods preclude such goods being imported in original
(Labour Court), Hamburg, of 3 May 2000, which was received              packaging with a content of less than or equal to 11 kg?
at the Court Registry on 19 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg on the following questions:                                     (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
                                                                            determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible
1. Does a provision of a collective agreement for the public                on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their
     service which allows male and female employees to claim                end-use (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1987, p. 81).
     part-time working on grounds of age infringe Articles 2(1)
     and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the im-
     plementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     training and promotion, and working conditions, if it
     allows part-time working on grounds of age only until the
     time when a full pension under the statutory old-age
     insurance scheme may first be claimed, and if the class of
     persons who may already draw a full pension at the age of
     60 consists almost exclusively of women, while the class           Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
     who may draw a full pension only from the age of                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     65 consists almost exclusively of men?
2. Are national courts empowered, where provisions of                                             (Case C-191/00)
     collective agreements and legislative provisions are in
     breach of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) or Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), to apply the corresponding provisions in favour of                                  (2000/C 211/19)
     the disadvantaged class, disregarding the restrictions which
     are contrary to Community law, until non-discriminatory
     rules are created by the parties to the collective agreement       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     and/or the legislature?                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                        ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
(2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.


title: Case T-456/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/35

         Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)
   (Case T-456/17)
   (2017/C 309/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Djili soy original DS’ — Application for registration No 8 810 558

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03 May 2017 in Case R 516/2011-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               uphold the opposition against the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’ and/or to cancel the registration of EUTMA 008404551 ‘Djili DS’;

               —

               in subsidiary, annul the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal dated 03/05/2017 concerning the appeal R 516/2011-5 and to order the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and further to order the Board of Appeal to maintain the suspension of its proceedings until a written, motivated and signed final decision on the appeal for annulment, docket no. 2794/1/2016, is provided to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO and DZHIHANGIR Ibryam to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 1, 1st Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 20(7)(a) and (c) of the Commission Regulation (EC) no.2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) no. 40/94 on the Community trade mark;

               —

                  Mutatis mutandis article 53(2)(c) and (d) of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009 in respect of the applicant’s copyright for the picture of the package ‘Djili’ written in red letters on a blue package with the figure of a parrot and in respect of the applicant’s rights to use a trade name for products in the sense of the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Case C-17/06 ‘Celine’;

               —

               Other relevant legal provision.


title: Case C-447/03: Action brought on 22 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
10.1.2004              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         event, (c) in the circumstances, the Commission was stopped
                                                                        from denying that the notification was lawful by reason of
                                                                        some formal defect and the Court of First Instance erred in law
                                                                        in failing to hold that that was so.
The Appellant’s application to the Court of First Instance was
dismissed on the basis that aid granted to the Appellant in
1995 was a continuation of aid which had previously been                The Court of First Instance erroneously relied on (a) the
granted to the Appellant in 1992 unlawfully (without prior              reference (‘NN’) used by the Commission in relation to the
notification to the Commission); that the 1995 aid was                  1995 aid and (b) the fact that the Commission did not reject
effectively tainted by the unlawfulness of the earlier aid; and         the letter of 27 March 1995 (which, by circular reasoning, the
that the unlawfulness was not cured by the provision in 1995            Court of First Instance said that it would have done, if it had
of the information about the 1995 agreement The Appellant               understood the letter to be a notification) as showing that the
submits that the Court of First Instance was wrong in law to            1995 aid had not been duly notified to the Commission.
dismiss its application for the following reasons:                      Neither of those facts was capable in law of depriving the letter
                                                                        of 27 March 1995 of its character as a notification of the plan
                                                                        to grant the 1995 aid.
The Court of First Instance misconstrued Article 88(3) EC,
failing to give effect to the principle that the obligation to          (1) OJ C 212, 28.07.2001, p. 26.
inform the Commission of plans to alter aid is a discrete               (2) OJ C 227, 11.08.2001, p. 29.
obligation no less than is the obligation to inform the
Commission of plans to grant (new) aid. Even where aid was
originally granted unlawfully, altered aid granted under an
agreement that replaces the original agreement will be granted
lawfully if the Commission is informed of the plans to grant
the altered aid and takes a favourable decision with regard to
it before the altered aid is granted.
                                                                        Action brought on 22 October 2003 by the Commission
The Court of First Instance erroneously supported its con-              of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
clusion summarised at paragraph 1 above by finding that the
substance of the aid did not differ between the 1992 and 1995
agreements, and that the 1995 aid was therefore tainted by the                                    (Case C-447/03)
unlawfulness of the 1992 aid.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/32)
The Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the letter of
27 March 1995 providing information to the Commission
about the 1995 agreement was capable in law of having, and
did have, a two-fold character: it disposed of the 1992                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
agreement as having been replaced and it informed the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October
Commission of the finalised plan to grant new aid by way of             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
replacement of the 1992 aid; the Court of First Instance erred          represented by Minas Kostantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
in law in supposing that the first aspect of the letter excluded        acting as Agents.
the second.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Court of First Instance relied on alleged procedural failings
in the provision of information by way of the letter of                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the necessary
27 March 1995. The Court of First Instance erred in so doing                  measures to ensure that waste, stored and deposited in
since: (a) contrary to the Court of First Instance’s judgment,                dumps on Enichem’s former Manfredonia site (province
there is no requirement laid down by Article 88(3), and there                 of Foggia) and in the Pariti I dump (province of Manfre-
was none in law at the time of the notification, that the                     donia) is recovered or disposed of without endangering
relevant information must be supplied by the Member State in                  human health and without using processes or methods
question; (b) the Court of First Instance relied on the fact that             which could harm the environment, and by failing to
the form and content of the notification did not satisfy the                  bring into force the necessary measures to ensure that the
formal criteria laid down by the Commission in communi-                       holder of the waste stored and deposited in dumps on
cations to Member States, overlooking the fact that communi-                  Enichem’s Manfredonia site and the holder of urban waste
cations from the Commission to Member States cannot create                    in the Pariti I and Conte di Troia dumps has it handled by
legal requirements that are binding on individuals; and, in any               a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/20                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.1.2004
      which carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B                 out the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the
      or recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic                directive. It has therefore also failed to fulfil its obligations
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and                   under Article 8 of that directive.
      Article 8 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by
      Directive 91/156/EEC (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
—     As regards the site of the former Enichem industrial plant,          di Milano — Sezione Prima Civile by order of that Court
      in view of the information provided by the Italian                   of 15 October 2003 in the case of Servizi Ausiliari Dottori
      authorities and the subsequent prolonged silence maintai-            Commercialisti s.r.l. against Notaio Giuseppe Calafiori;
      ned by them, it must be considered that the removal                  intervener: The Public Prosecutor, in the person of the
      operations of the waste deposited on Island 5 were not                     Attorney General at the Court of Appeal, Milan
      completed as planned by December 2002; that Enichem
      has not submitted, by December 2002, a project for the
      decontamination of the waste deposited on Islands 12,                                          (Case C-451/03)
      14 and 17 and that it is therefore lying in the same place,
      even though it is beyond doubt that it needs to be
      removed; that regarding the waste on Island 16 there is
      at present only an outline plan still a long way from being                                     (2004/C 7/33)
      implemented.
—     As for the Pariti I and Conte di Troia dumps, the technical
      preliminary investigations conducted by the Ministry of              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the Environment concerning the plan for the identifi-                European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
      cation of the sites in question has not been completed for           Milano — Sezione Prima Civile (Court of Appeal, Milan —
      October 2002 as planned, and therefore the situation                 Civil Section I) of 15 October 2003, received at the Court
      has remained completely unchanged since the reasoned                 Registry on 27 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      opinion was delivered.                                               case of Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti s.r.l. against
                                                                           Notaio Giuseppe Calafiori; intervener: The Public Prosecutor,
                                                                           in the person of the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal,
                                                                           Milan on the following questions:
—     In the light of the foregoing, notwithstanding that the
      Conte di Troia dump does not constitute an immediate
      risk to the environment, the fact remains that the Italian           1.    Must Articles 4, 10, 82, 86 and 98 of the EC Treaty be
      Republic has not brought into force any measures to                        interpreted as precluding national rules such as those laid
      ensure that the waste lying in the Pariti I dump since                     down in Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July 1997, as
      1989 and Enichem’s Manfredonia site since 1993 is                          amended by Legislative Decree No 490 of 28 December
      recovered and disposed of without using processes or                       1998, read together with the consolidated law on income
      methods which could harm the environment. It has                           tax (Decree of the President of the Republic No 917 of
      therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of              22 December 1986) and Law No 413 of 30 December
      the directive.                                                             1991, which exclusively reserves the right to provide
                                                                                certain types of tax advice to a single category of
                                                                                operators, namely the Centri di Assistenza Fiscale (or
                                                                                CAFs), and denies other economic operators in the sector
—     The Italian Republic has failed to bring into force the                    who are nevertheless professionally qualified to provide
      necessary measures to ensure that the holder of the waste                  tax and accounting advice (doctors, commercial account-
      on Enichem’s Manfredonia site and in the Pariti I and                      ants, lawyers and work consultants) the opportunity of
      Conte di Troia dumps has it handled by a public or                         providing, on the same terms and conditions, the type of
      private waste collector or by an undertaking which carries                 advice reserved to the CAFs?


title: Case T-67/07: Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/52

         Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN)
   (Case T-67/07)
   (2007/C 95/105)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, USA) (represented by R. Ingerl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1135/2006-2)

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘FUN ’for goods and services in Class 12 (Application No 4 509 808).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal and refusal of the application.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) by reason of the incorrect application of the absolute ground for refusal regarding the indication of the characteristics of the goods to words forming part of the general vocabulary which are not directly descriptive,

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by accepting that the mark was devoid of any descriptive character by reason only of the improper application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, and

               —

               infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the ground that the mark applied for was sufficiently distinctive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-484/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 8 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 8 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro
   (Case C-484/16)
   (2016/C 428/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Taranto

      Party to the main proceedings

   Antonio Semeraro

      Question referred

   Does Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, (1) implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 212 of 15 December 2015 (Gazzetta Ufficiale General Series No 3 of 5 January 2016), in particular recitals 9, 66 and 67 and Article 2(1)(a) thereof, preclude the repeal of the criminal offence set out in Article 594 of the Criminal Code referred to in Articles [1] et seq. of Legislative Decree No 7 of 15 January 2016, having regard to Article 83 TFEU and Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution and to Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57.


title: Case C-453/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik
   (Case C-453/16)
   (2016/C 383/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) a term of EU law which must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation?

               2.

               If so, what is the meaning of that term?

               3.

               Does the confirmation, as in the present case, by a member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of a national arrest warrant previously issued by the police constitute such a ‘judicial decision’?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-250/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Evropaiki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of services for the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union — Rejection of a tender — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — No manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Evropaiki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-250/05) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services for the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union - Rejection of a tender - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - No manifest error of assessment)
   (2007/C 199/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaiki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and M. Šimerdová, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities of 15 April 2005 to reject the applicant's tender in connection with the call for tenders issued on 19 November 2004 (OJ 2004, S 226) for the provision of services in relation to the collection, production and dissemination of electronic publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaiki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-475/15: Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/22

         Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)
   (Case T-475/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the mark - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 200/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissman, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1143/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH and L’Oréal SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2005 in Case C-13/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Tetra Laval BV (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Judgment holding that a decision ordering a separation of undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of an earlier decision declaring a merger incompatible with the common market)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 15 February 2005
   in Case C-13/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Tetra Laval BV (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Judgment holding that a decision ordering a separation of undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of an earlier decision declaring a merger incompatible with the common market)
   (2005/C 106/07)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-13/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 8 January 2003 by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Petite, A. Whelan and P. Hellström), the other party to the proceedings being Tetra Laval BV established in Amsterdam (Netherlands) (represented by A. Vandencasteele and D. Waelbroeck, M. Johnsson, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the First Chamber (acting as President), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the appeal;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case C-324/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-135/13: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/25

         Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-135/13: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-324/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sitre Srl, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, New Japan Chemical, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-135/13; and

               —

               Annul the contested decision or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ Application for annulment; and

               —

               Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment of the Contested Decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

               —

               The General Court made contradictory and erroneous statements with respect to the need to have regard to risk assessment pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH (1), leading to a misinterpretation of the same.

               —

               The General Court made contradictory statements and departed from established case law on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by ‘equivalent level of concern’ under Article 57(f) of the same.

               —

               The General Court flawed reliance on Article 60(2) of REACH led to insufficient reasoning.

               —

               The General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby misapplying Article 57(f).

         For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-135/13 should be set aside and the Contested Decision should be annulled.

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


title: Case T-627/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ATMvision v European Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/26

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ATMvision v European Commission
   (Case T-627/11)
   2012/C 49/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ATMvision AG (Salem, Germany) (represented by: A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety the defendant’s decision of 26 January 2011 in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               in the alternative, annul that decision at least in so far as it does not provide for any exception on the basis of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in favour of undertakings in the applicant’s position to the obligation to recover aid set out in Articles 4 and 5 of that decision or at least does not provide for any transitional provisions in favour of such undertakings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following:

               —

               The defendant incorrectly comes to the conclusion in the contested decision that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) is unlawful State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard the applicant submits inter alia that the defendant incorrectly assumes that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is selective and constitutes an unjustified exception to the principle set out in Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG according to which the tax losses of a corporation are under certain conditions extinguished if there is a change in the shareholders of that corporation. The applicant takes the view that the provision in Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG is incorrectly regarded by the defendant as the relevant domestic reference system for the investigation of the aid.

               —

               The relevant reference system is the possibility, which is fundamentally given under German law, of transferring losses between different tax periods, which arises out of the principle known as the principle of net profit or loss. The applicant takes the view that that reference system is merely confirmed by the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG. In addition, Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG cannot constitute the relevant domestic reference system because that legal provision is unconstitutional according to the requirements of the German Basic Law.

               —

               Moreover, the provision in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG constitutes what is known as a general measure, which potentially benefits all economic operators encumbered with losses and does not give preference to a delimited group of operators on the market. The applicant takes the view that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is not therefore selective.

               —

               The provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses in Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is also justified on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the German tax system because that provision limits the effects of the restriction on the deduction of losses in Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG. The applicant submits in that regard that the original version of Paragraph 8c of the KStG was a provision to avoid abuse which had become too wide and that the subsequent (and retroactive) amendment of that provision by Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG merely reduced the surplus normative content of Paragraph 8c(1) of the KStG and in that respect restored the general transfer of losses between different tax periods as the relevant reference system.

               —

               Lastly, the applicant submits that it has legitimate expectations because the defendant’s negative decision was unforeseeable and the defendant did not complain about the similarly structured preceding provision in Paragraph 8(4) of the older version of the KStG and comparable provisions in other Member States.


title: Case T-387/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Reduction of assistance — Application to suspend operation Lack of urgency)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/44

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-387/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Reduction of assistance - Application to suspend operation Lack of urgency)
   (2008/C 51/82)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Flynn, agents)
   Re:
   Application to suspend operation, on the one hand, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995 and, on the other, of the alleged payment order contained in a debit note of 17 September 2007.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


14.9.2002              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 219/13
        Removal from the register of Case C-450/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-490/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/30)                                                       (2002/C 219/33)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 7 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-450/01: Commission of the European                register of Case C-490/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-451/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-16/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/31)                                                       (2002/C 219/34)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 26 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-451/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-16/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-453/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-17/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/32)                                                       (2002/C 219/35)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 18 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-453/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-17/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case T-557/12: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — RiskMetrics Solutions v OHIM — (RISKMANAGER)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/68

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — RiskMetrics Solutions v OHIM — (RISKMANAGER)
   (Case T-557/12) (1)

   2013/C 344/125
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-87/94: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2006 — Blom and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1983 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/10

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2006 — Blom and Others v Commission
   (Case T-87/94) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1983 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)
   (2006/C 249/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: J.C. Blom (Blokker, Netherlands) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, Agents, and subsequently by A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, Agent, assisted by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently by T. van Rijn)
   Re:
   Application for compensation, under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC), for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action, in so far as it was brought by Mr J.C. Blom;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

               3.

               Reserves the disposal of the action in the same case, in so far as it was brought by the applicants whose names appear in the annex.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 26.3.1994.


title: Case C-16/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2009 — Gudrun Schwemmer v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2009 — Gudrun Schwemmer v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse
   (Case C-16/09)
   2009/C 90/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gudrun Schwemmer

      Respondent: Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the rule in Article 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) to be applied mutatis mutandis to Article 10(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) in cases where the parent with a right to claim does not apply for the family benefits to which he is entitled in the country of employment?

               2.

               In the event that Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be applied mutatis mutandis: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the country of residence apply Article 10(a) of Regulation No 574/72 as if benefits had been granted in the country of employment? May the discretion to assume that family benefits have been received in the country of employment be restricted where the person entitled intentionally does not apply for the family benefits to which he is entitled in the country of employment in order to cause detriment to the person entitled to child benefit in the country of residence?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

      (2)  OJ English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159.


title: Case T-215/10: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Cotton — Aid to the least well-off — Rural development — Effectiveness of supervision — Proportionality)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-215/10) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Cotton - Aid to the least well-off - Rural development - Effectiveness of supervision - Proportionality)
   2012/C 355/51
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by I. Khalkias, G. Skiani and E. Leftheriotou, subsequently I. Khalkias, E. Leftheriotou and X. Basakou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2001/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7) as Decision 2001/152/EU, in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.