title: Case T-278/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Shell Hengelo Zuid v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Shell Hengelo Zuid v Commission
   (Case T-278/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/56)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-459/11: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Barloworld v Commission

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/7

         Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Barloworld v Commission
   (Case T-459/11)
   2011/C 305/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Barloworld International, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by F. Alcaraz Gutierrez and A.J de la Cruz Martínez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision (Commission Decision of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain) in that it declares that Article 12 of the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (‘TRLIS’) (the consolidated text of the Spanish Company Tax Act) contains elements of State aid regulated by Article 107(1) TFEU and lacks the reasoning required by Article 296 TFEU;

               —

               or, in accordance with the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, annul Article 1(2) and (3) of the decision the object of these proceedings, in that it does not allow transactions effected from the date on which the Commission’s Opening Decision was published (21 December 2007) to the date on which the contested decision was published (21 May 2011) to continue to apply the fiscal deduction under Article 12(5) TRLIS throughout the period of amortisation;

               —

               or, annul Article 1(4) and (5) of the decision the object of these proceedings, in that it gives no reasons for establishing a scheme on the basis that legal obstacles to legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have supposedly not been demonstrated, and

               —

               order the Commission of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as Article 12(5) TRLIS does not meet the conditions for being regarded as State aid.

                           —

                           Article 12(5) TRLIS, considered in the Spanish tax system as a whole, does not constitute an economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. On the other hand, the measure at issue is general in nature, for it cannot be concluded that is in fact selective, in the terms recognised by the Commission’s legal opinion and Community case-law.

               2.

               The second plea in law, claiming that the contested decision is supported by no reasoning at all

                           —

                           The Decision lacks the reasoning called for by Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission has not therein carefully and impartially examined all relevant matters, nor given reasons enough for the conclusions of that decision. What particularly attracts attention is the insufficient reasoning in analysing whether or not there are legal barriers to cross-border business combinations.

               3.

               The third plea in law, arguing that the measure is in keeping with Article 107(3) TFEU

                           —

                           Amortising of financial goodwill pursues the aim, for want of fiscal harmonisation at EU level, of removing obstacles to cross-border investment, for it obviates the negative effect of barriers to cross-border and national business combinations, which ensures that decisions adopted concerning those transactions are not based on fiscal considerations, but rather on purely economic considerations.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, given that the transitional scheme arising from the application of that principle ought to be applied until the date on which the Decision was published in the OJEU, i.e., 21 May 2011.

                           —

                           The Decision on extra-EU acquisitions was maintained pending resolution, it being expressly stated in the first Decision on intra-EU acquisitions that there may, outside the EU, persist legal barriers to cross-border business combinations that would place such transactions in a different situation of law and fact from that of intra-Community transactions. The first Decision therefore led certain undertakings to entertain legitimate expectations regarding the Spanish legislation, especially in the light of the knowledge that, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, it is in fact impossible to effect cross-border business combinations outside the European Union.


title: Case C-558/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chartres (France) lodged on 29 November 2010 — Michel Bourges-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Bourges-Maunoury (née Heintz) v Direction des Services Fiscaux d’Eure et Loir

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chartres (France) lodged on 29 November 2010 — Michel Bourges-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Bourges-Maunoury (née Heintz) v Direction des Services Fiscaux d’Eure et Loir
   (Case C-558/10)
   2011/C 46/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Chartres

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Michel Bourges-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Bourges-Maunoury (née Heintz)

      Defendant: Direction des Services Fiscaux d’Eure et Loir

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to the second paragraph of Article 13 of Chapter V of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, (1) annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, for the entirety of a taxpayer’s income, including Community income, to be taken into account in calculating the cap on wealth tax (‘impôt de solidarité sur la fortune’)?

      (1)  OJ 1967 L 152, p. 13, now Article 12 of Chapter V of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266).


title: Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-225/98)

text:
C 258/28                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998                 Travail de LieÁge (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court
in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting                 of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop
                             Beatrixoord                                           against the Office National de l'Emploi
                          (Case C-222/98)                                                      (Case C-224/98)
                            (98/C 258/45)                                                       (98/C 258/47)
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 judgment of the Kantongerecht
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen) of 20 May
                                                                       Travail de LieÁge (7eÁme chambre) (LieÁge Labour Court Ð
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1998, for
                                                                       7th Chamber) of 17 June 1998, received at the Court
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hendrik Van der
                                                                       Registry on 22 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord on the following
                                                                       case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office
question:
                                                                       National de l'Emploi on the following question:
Are Article II(G) of the CAO (1) (which prohibits any
departure from the terms of that collective labour                     Given that the Court of Justice has already interpreted
agreement (2)) and Article 32 thereof (which lays down the             Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
medical expenses insurance rules (3)), read in conjunction             No 1612/68 (1) to mean that Article 36 of the Royal
with each other, contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC              Decree of 25 November 1991 cannot prevent a dependent
Treaty?                                                                child of a Community migrant worker who has completed
                                                                       his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
(1) Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het ziekenhuiswezen           State other than Belgium from being eligible to receive the
    (Collective Labour Agreement relating to medical treatment).       tideover allowance, are those provisions to be interpreted
(2) may not . . . agree with the employee any conditions of           as meaning that Article 36 of the aforesaid royal decree
    employment which are not regulated by this CAO'.                   also cannot prevent a Belgian student who has completed
(3) Employees (and former employees) may be members of the             his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
    IZZ collective medical expenses insurance scheme. In               State other than Belgium and is seeking his first
    accordance with that article, Beatrixoord pays 50 % of the
                                                                       employment from being eligible to receive the tideover
    premium due from Mr Van der Woude in respect of the
    collective (individual) IZZ Medical Expenses Scheme.               allowance?
                                                                       (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
                                                                           relating to the free movement of workers within the
                                                                           Community (OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Kammarrätten,
Stockholm by order of 16 June 1998 in the case of
           Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG
                          (Case C-223/98)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of
                            (98/C 258/46)
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-225/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 16 June 1998 from                                              (98/C 258/48)
Kammarrätten, Stockholm (Administrative Court of
Appeal, Stockholm), which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the              An action against the French Republic was brought before
case of Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG on the                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
following question:                                                    22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Michael Nolin, of its Legal
                                                                       Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) constitute a
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
bar to application of rules of national law under which
                                                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the names of declarers or consignees of imported goods,
which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit,
may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994
    laying down measures to prohibit the release from free             Declare that, in the course of the various procedures for
    circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive           the award of public service contracts for the construction
    procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341 of            and maintenance of school buildings conducted by the
    30.12.1994, p. 8).                                                 Nord-Pas de Calais Region and the DeÂpartement du Nord
                                                                       over a period of three years, the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/29
Treaty as well as under Articles 12, 26 and 29 of Directive            freedom of Community architects to provide their
71/305/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 89/440/EEC (2)                  services (by requiring proof that the main architect
and Articles 8, 11, 22 and 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC (3).              was a member of the Architects' Association), the
                                                                       DeÂpartement du Nord failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Article 12(5) of Directive 71/305/EEC
                                                                       and of Article 11(5) of Directive 93/37/EEC: during
Ð Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 71/305/EEC                   the period 1993 to 1995, the Nord-Pas de Calais
    and of Article 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC: during the               Region did not publish any award notice.
    period 1993 to 1995, the pre-notification procedure
    was only rarely followed by the Nord-Pas de Calais
    Region. So far as concerns the DeÂpartement du Nord,           Ð Infringement of Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC:
    the Commission found no pre-notification notice                    the French authorities refused to forward to the
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  Commission the minutes of the procedures in issue.
    Communities, Supplement S, during the same period.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 185 of 16.8. 1971, p. 5.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 210 of 21.7. 1989, p. 1.
Ð Infringement of Article 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC: the           (3) OJ L 199 of 9.8. 1993, p. 54.
    Commission acknowledges that the taking into
    account of employment-related projects may be
    considered to be a valid additional criterion, but only
    as a condition of performance. By expressly presenting
    an employment-related condition as a criterion for
    awarding contracts, the French authorities have
    infringed Article 30.                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sixth Tax
                                                                   Chamber of the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles by judgment of
                                                                   that court of 12 June 1998 in the case of Georges Van der
                                                                    Zwalmen and Elisabeth Massart against the Belgian State
Ð Infringement of Article 22 of Directive 93/37/EEC: in
    notices which appeared in the Official Journal of                                     (Case C-229/98)
    18 February 1995, the phrase limited number of                                        (98/C 258/49)
    candidates' (Heading 13), gives the impression that
    that number could be less than 5.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by the Sixth Tax Chamber of the
Ð Infringement of Article 29(2) of Directive 71/305/EEC            Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) by
    and of Article 30(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC: in most           judgment of 12 June 1998, which was received at the
    of the notices, the contracting authorities, in order to       Court Registry on 26 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    indicate the award criteria, resorted to the method of         in the case of Georges Van der Zwalmen and Elisabeth
    award by reference to the Public Contracts Code'.             Massart v Belgian State, on the following questions:
    However, a general reference to a provision of
    domestic legislation cannot fulfil the obligation to
    advertise.                                                     Must Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
                                                                   Immunities of the European Communities be interpreted
                                                                   as:
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: the
    technical specifications selected by the contracting           (1) prohibiting the Member States, under fiscal
    authorities could have the effect of favouring national             legislation applicable to personal tax, from creating,
    undertakings who are familiar with the system of                    for the taxation of married couples and their
    quality certification and which are used to providing               children, a distinct category of taxpayers by reason of
    documents or services in accordance with the                        the fact that one of them is a European official,
    references laid down in the contract notice. Moreover,              receiving as such earned income which is exempted
    undertakings established in other Member States are                 under a convention, without reservation as to
    not encouraged to submit tenders inasmuch as they                   progressive rates of tax, and from making for that
    do not have the means of knowing beforehand                         category two separate assessments whereby the tax is
    whether their qualifications comply with those                      determined for each of them on the basis of his own
    technical particulars in the absence of any equivalent              income and that of his children which is available to
    qualification.                                                      him by operation of law, whilst at the same time,
                                                                        where appropriate, each remains jointly and severally
                                                                        liable for the tax debt of the household (see
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty;                          Article 295 of the 1964 Income Tax Code and
    infringement of Article 26 of Directive 71/305/EEC: by              Article 394 of the 1992 Income Tax Code),
    imposing restrictions in a number of notices on the                 whereas, for married couples in which one spouse


title: Case C-311/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — O. Tümer v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency — Directive 80/987/EEC — Employee who is a third-country national and who does not hold a valid residence permit — Refusal to grant an insolvency benefit)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — O. Tümer v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-311/13) (1)

   ((Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency - Directive 80/987/EEC - Employee who is a third-country national and who does not hold a valid residence permit - Refusal to grant an insolvency benefit))
   (2015/C 007/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: O. Tümer

      Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a third-country national who is not legally resident in the Member State concerned is not to be regarded as an employee with the right to an insolvency benefit — on the basis, in particular, of claims relating to unpaid wages — in the event of his employer’s insolvency, even though that third-country national is recognised under the civil law of the Member State as having the status of an ‘employee’ with an entitlement to pay which could be the subject of an action against his employer before the national courts.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 31.8.2013.


title: Action brought on 2 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-206/98)

text:
15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/23
The agreements concluded after the entry into force of             declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force
Regulation No 4055/86 (UEBL Ð Mali, UEBL Ð Togo)                   Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control of
                                                                   insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree
                                                                   of 12 August 1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
The prohibition on cargo-sharing arrangements in any              fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of
future agreements' (Article 5 of the regulation) is intended       12 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
to preclude the substantive legal effects of such                  administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
arrangements which undermine the principle of freedom              than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC
to provide services which applies to maritime transport by         and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and
virtue of Regulation No 4055/86. In order to ensure the            under the EC Treaty.
effectiveness of the prohibition, Member States are
required not to include cargo-sharing arrangements when
negotiating new agreements with third countries.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The agreements with Mali and Togo contain cargo-sharing
arrangements which, in respect of future agreements, are
prohibited other than in the exceptional circumstances             In that it excludes from the scope of the national
specified in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 4055/86,                transposing legislation any insurance fund or undertaking
namely where, without such arrangements, Community                 covering the risk of accidents at work, even where such
liner shipping companies would not have an effective               undertakings carry on business at their own risk with a
opportunity to ply for trade to and from the country               view to profit, Article 2 of the Belgian Law of 9 July
concerned and in accordance with Article 6 of the                  1975, as amended by the Royal Decree of 12 August
regulation which requires a proposal from the                      1994, is inconsistent with Directive 92/49/EEC. The
Commission to the Council. Those circumstances do not              Commission does not contest the fact that the Belgian
exist, nor have the procedures been followed in the                system in respect of accidents at work falls within the
present case. The agreement in question reserves carriage          exception relating to social security. However, where,
between the parties to vessels flying their flag or operated       under the legislation of a Member State, operations
by national shipping companies'. It follows that vessels          forming part of the compulsory social security system may
operated by nationals of other Member States are                   be effected by insurance undertakings carrying on business
excluded from carriage.                                            at their own risk with a view to profit, as is the case in
                                                                   Belgium, they fall within the scope of Directive 92/49/
                                                                   EEC.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not provided the
necessary proof of the termination of those agreements.
                                                                   The only interpretation of Directive 92/49/EEC which
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                  enables Article 2(2) to be reconciled with Article 55 is that
                                                                   which includes within the scope of the directive the
                                                                   provision of insurance cover against the risk of accidents
                                                                   at work where that activity is carried on by an insurance
                                                                   undertaking at its own risk with a view to profit.
Action brought on 2 June 1998 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium              The joint declaration of the Council and the Commission
                                                                   annexed to the Council minutes at the time of adoption of
                       (Case C-206/98)
                                                                   Directive 88/357/EEC relates to Article 12(2) of that
                        (98/C 258/36)                              directive, which was repealed by Article 37 of Directive
                                                                   92/49/EEC with effect from 1 July 1994; it cannot prevail
                                                                   over the clear provisions of a subsequent directive
                                                                   amending the directive forming the subject-matter of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               declaration.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting          Lastly, the Belgian Government wrongly relies on
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Article 55 of the EC Treaty. The legal basis of Directive
the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,              92/49 is Articles 57(2) and 66 of the EEC Treaty, and its
Kirchberg.                                                         object is the completion of the internal market in direct
                                                                   insurance other than life assurance from the point of view
                                                                   both of the right of establishment and of the freedom to
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  provide services. It follows that, as regards the areas
that the Court should:                                             harmonised by that directive (in particular, prudential and
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
financial controls of insurance companies), the exceptions          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the freedom to provide services and the right of
establishment are those provided for by that directive and
not those which result from the application of Article 55           Ð find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the EC Treaty.                                                       under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
                                                                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
(1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                        comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
                                                                        19 November 1992 on rental and lending rights
                                                                        related to copyright in the field of intellectual
                                                                        property (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                        Commission thereof,
Reference      for    a    preliminary    ruling    by    the
                                                                        and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 31 March
 1998 in case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknappschaft
                       (Case C-211/98)
                                                                    Ð order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                        (98/C 258/37)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozial-
gericht (Federal Social Court) of 31 March 1998, received
                                                                    Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                    be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
ruling in the case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknapp-
                                                                    Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
schaft (Federal Insurance Fund for Miners) on the
                                                                    Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
following questions:
                                                                    down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1994
                                                                    without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
1. Is there, on the basis of the law relating to the                comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
    Association between the European Economic                       the Commission and/or informing the Commission
    Community        and     Turkey,   a    prohibition    of       thereof.
    discrimination in the field of social security which is
    directly applicable to a Turkish worker in the Federal          (1) OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
    Republic of Germany?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is that
    prohibition to be interpreted as precluding a national
    provision under which the applicable date of birth for
    statutory pension insurance benefits and for the
    insurance number assigned in that regard is the date            Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of
    which was documented when the Turkish worker was                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    first registered with a national social benefit
    institution?                                                                           (Case C-214/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/39)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice on 10 June 1998 by the
Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the              Commission of the European Communities, represented
           European Communities against Ireland                     by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
                       (Case C-213/98)                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                        (98/C 258/38)                               Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by               The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Ð by failing to refer to the category of solipeds/equidae
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its                   in the list of meat to which the fees laid down by
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) apply,


title: Case C-562/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (System for monitoring bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Bovine animals over 30 months of age — Slaughter under normal conditions — Meat intended for human consumption — Mandatory screening test — National rules — Obligation to screen — Extension — Bovine animals over 24 months of age)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Müller Fleisch GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-562/08) (1)

   (System for monitoring bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Bovine animals over 30 months of age - Slaughter under normal conditions - Meat intended for human consumption - Mandatory screening test - National rules - Obligation to screen - Extension - Bovine animals over 24 months of age)
   2010/C 100/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Müller Fleisch GmbH

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of, in conjunction with Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 173, p. 12) — Requirement to screen for BSE all bovine animals over 30 months of age subject to normal slaughter for human consumption — National legislation extending the obligation to screen to all bovine animals over 24 months of age

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and Annex III, Chapter A, Part I to that regulation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1248/2001 of 22 June 2001, do not preclude national rules under which all bovine animals over 24 months of age must be screened for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case F-46/09: Action brought on 5 October 2009 — V v European Parliament

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/40

         Action brought on 5 October 2009 — V v European Parliament
   (Case F-46/09)
   2010/C 11/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the medical opinion of physical unfitness of 18 December 2008 and, second, annulment of the decision of 19 December 2008 to withdraw the offer of employment previously made to the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 19 December 2008 by the Director of Administrative Management of Personnel withdrawing, on the ground of unfitness for employment, the offer of employment as a member of the contractual staff within the Secretariat General made to the applicant on 10 December 2008

               —

               Annul the medical opinion of physical unfitness of 18 December 2008 issued by the medical officer of the Parliament since that medical officer concluded that the applicant was physically unfit without even having carried out a clinical examination of the applicant and relying solely on the decision of unfitness for employment taken by the medical officer of the European Commission in 2006 which was then improperly confirmed by a medical committee, further to the application for the annulment of that Commission decision by the applicant — those decisions being challenged before the Civil Service Tribunal in the pending Case F-33/08;

               —

               As a consequence of those annulments, organise a real medical examination for employment with the Parliament which will not be discriminatory and re-open the post to be offered to the applicant at the DG Communication of the European Parliament;

               —

               Award compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally and fairly estimated at EUR 70 000 (with the addition of default interest to be calculated at the rates set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing transactions, plus two points, from 18 December 2008), subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-842/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/39

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Repower v EUIPO — repowermap (REPOWER)
   (Case T-842/16)
   (2017/C 038/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 020 351

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-300/09 and C-301/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09) (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Prohibition for Member States to introduce new restrictions on access to the labour market)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)
   (Joined Cases C-300/09 and C-301/09) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Prohibition for Member States to introduce new restrictions on access to the labour market)
   2011/C 55/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Defendants: F. Toprak (C-300/09), I. Oguz (C-301/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Standstill rule — Scope — Member States prohibited from introducing new restrictions on access to the labour market — Meaning of ‘new restriction’

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, concerning a national provision on the acquisition of a residence permit by Turkish workers, Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that a tightening of a provision introduced after 1 December 1980, which provided for a relaxation of the provision applicable on 1 December 1980, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that article, even where that tightening does not make the conditions governing the acquisition of that permit more stringent than those which resulted from the provision in force on 1 December 1980, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-74/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — France v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/26

         Action brought on 18 February 2009 — France v Commission
   (Case T-74/09)
   2009/C 102/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in favour of fruit and vegetables producer organisations for the financial years 2005 and 2006;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) inasmuch as it excludes, for the financial years 2005 and 2006, certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic.
   In support of its action the applicant relies on two pleas in law alleging:

               —

               misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(2)(d) of Regulation No 2200/96 (1) in so far as, contrary to what the Commission found, the French Government satisfies the conditions laid down by that provision since every producer has the necessary material and, in accordance with the objective of economic effectiveness pursued by that regulation, it may, in certain circumstances, be more appropriate for each producer to hold the necessary material than to use a single sorting, storage and packaging centre provided by the producer organisation;

               —

               misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11(1)(c), point 3, of Regulation No 2200/96 in so far as the Commission was wrong to take the view that the French Government had not complied with the conditions of that provision, which provides that the rules of association of producer organisations require producer members to market their entire production through the producer organisation although the French legislation provides for producer organisations to play an active role in the marketing of products and the fixing of selling prices.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Non-disclosure of document emanating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Non-disclosure of document emanating from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)
   (2005/C 229/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-139/03: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, assisted by A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially K. Manji, subsequently C. Jackson, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning a scheme of State aid declared compatible with the Common Market by the Commission's Decision of 12 July 2000 [SG (2000) D/105754 — Aid No 715/99] — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21. 6. 2003.


               25.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/6

         Action brought on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-10/15)
   (2015/C 209/05)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 10 February 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 10 December 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations, as referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

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


title: Case C-377/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v FINWAY a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — National rules governing insolvency proceedings — Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement — Effective judicial remedy — Point 1(e) of the annex — Disproportionate amount of compensation — Directive 2008/48/EC — Article 3(l) — Total amount of credit — Point I of Annex I — Amount of drawdown — Calculation of the annual percentage rate — Article 10(2) — Obligation to provide information — Ex officio examination — Penalty)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v FINWAY a.s.
      (Case C-377/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - National rules governing insolvency proceedings - Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement - Effective judicial remedy - Point 1(e) of the annex - Disproportionate amount of compensation - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 3(l) - Total amount of credit - Point I of Annex I - Amount of drawdown - Calculation of the annual percentage rate - Article 10(2) - Obligation to provide information - Ex officio examination - Penalty))
      (2016/C 211/10)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Krajský soud v Praze

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová

         Defendant: FINWAY a.s.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in insolvency proceedings does not permit, firstly, the court hearing the action to examine of its own motion any unfairness of contractual terms on which the claims declared in those proceedings are based, even when that court has available to it the matters of law and fact necessary to that end, and which, secondly, permits that court to examine only unsecured claims, solely in respect of a restricted number of complaints related to whether they are time-barred or have been paid.

                  2.

                  Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it requires a national court hearing a dispute concerning claims based on a credit agreement within the meaning of that directive to examine of its own motion whether the obligation to provide information laid down in that provision has been complied with and to establish the consequences under national law of an infringement of that obligation, provided that the penalties satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of that directive.

                  3.

                  Articles 3(1) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 and point I of Annex I to that directive must be interpreted as meaning that the total amount of the credit and the amount of the drawdown together designate the sums made available to the consumer, which excludes those used by the lender to pay the costs connected with the credit concerned and which are not actually paid to that consumer.

                  4.

                  The provisions of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the amount of compensation required to be paid by a consumer who does not fulfil his obligations is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, it is necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses in the contract in question, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they all be satisfied in full and that, if necessary, the national courts must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of that directive, establish all the consequences of the finding that certain terms are unfair, exclude all terms found to be unfair in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by them.

         (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2001 in Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos v Commission of the European Communities (Competition COM/A/12/98 — Action for annulment — Pre-selection tests — Retroactive cancellation of certain multiple-choice questions — Principle of equal treatment of candidates — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 134/19
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       selection board of 21 June 1999 confirming that initial
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            decision following a re-examination thereof and, second, of all
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 97/98-3) in so far as it           subsequent steps taken and measures adopted in the said
      concerns the following services:                                     competition — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 January 2001, in which
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         it:
      —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,      1.    Dismisses the application;
           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
           in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-     2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
           ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
           television; production of television and radio advertising
           broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;          (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
           organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
           ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
           under Class 41;
      —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
           property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
           field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
           including video and computer games, all falling under
           Class 42;                                                                              of 31 January 2001
2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;                            in Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                 Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                   (Community trade mark — Term DOUBLEMINT — Absol-
                                                                           ute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/41)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                        of 17 January 2001                                 In Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established in
                                                                           Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by
                                                                           M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, 58 Maximilianstraße,
in Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos v Commission of                     Munich, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the
                 the European Communities (1)                              Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
                                                                           V. Melgar and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Competition COM/A/12/98 — Action for annulment —                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Pre-selection tests — Retroactive cancellation of certain                  Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
multiple-choice questions — Principle of equal treatment of                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) concerning
candidates — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons)                 the registration of the term DOUBLEMINT as a Community
                                                                           trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 134/40)                                  composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
In Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos, residing in Thessaloni-
                                                                                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1);
ki (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
of Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d’Esch, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and M. Condou
Durande) — application for annulment, first, of the decision               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
of 30 April 1999 of the selection board in competition
COM/A/12/98 excluding the applicant from the tests sub-
sequent to the pre-selection test and of the decision of that


title: Case F-39/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2015 — FT v ESMA (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Accounting Officer — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract — Competent authority — Manifest error of assessment — Burden of proof — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/63

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2015 — FT v ESMA
   (Case F-39/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Accounting Officer - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Competent authority - Manifest error of assessment - Burden of proof - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint))
   (2015/C 381/88)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (initially represented by R. Vasileva Hoff, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Vasileva Hoff and A. Lorenzet, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract and for the award of damages in respect of the material loss allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that FT shall bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Securities and Markets Authority.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 58.


title: Case C-329/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Gerhard Prenninger and Others

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Gerhard Prenninger and Others
   (Case C-329/17)
   (2017/C 318/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerhard Prenninger, Karl Helmberger, Franziska Zimmer, Franz Scharinger, Norbert Pühringer, Agrargemeinschaft Pettenbach, Marktgemeinde Vorchdorf, Marktgemeinde Pettenbach, Gemeinde Steinbach am Ziehberg

      Question referred

   Must Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘clearance of a path’ for the purpose of the construction of a power supply system and for the duration of its lawful existence constitutes ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ within the meaning of point 1(d) of Annex II to the EIA Directive?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.


title: Case T-253/06 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2008 — Chassagne v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Payment of Annual travel expenses — Official originating from a French Overseas Department (DOM) — Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Confirmatory Act — Pay slip — Distortion of the facts — Error of law)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2008 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case T-253/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Payment of Annual travel expenses - Official originating from a French Overseas Department (DOM) - Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Confirmatory Act - Pay slip - Distortion of the facts - Error of law)
   (2008/C 285/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanx, subsequently, T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid, V. Joris, Agents, and F. Longfils, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05 Chassagne v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-65 and II-241) and seeking annulment of that order.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05 Chassagne v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-65 and II-241;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Orders that the costs shall be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 7 February 1997 in the case of 1. Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and 2. BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik (Case C-63/97)

text:
No C 108/ 14          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5 . 4 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Aalborg,               Commission of the European Communities was brought
by a letter of 7 February 1997 in the case of Foreningen af             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
danske Videogramdistributorer, acting for Egmont Film                   on 12 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
A/S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment A/S, Scanbox                        Communities, represented by Julian Currall, acting as
Danmark A/S, Metronome Video A/S, Polygram Records                      Agent, and Denis Waelbroeck, acting as advocate, with an
A/S, Nordisk Film Video A/S, Irish Video A/S and Warner                 address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
Home Video Inc., v. Laserdisken, in the person of Hans                  Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre .
Kristian Pedersen, Interveners: Sammenslutningen af Dan
ske Filminstruktorer, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer                The appellant claims that the Court should:
Electronics Denmark A/S and Videoforhandler Ove Jensen
                                                                        — annul the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996
                         ( Case C-61 /97)                                      by the Court of First Instance of the European
                           ( 97/C 108/25 )                                     Communities in Case T-33/95, Maria Lidia Lozano
                                                                               Palacios v. Commission of the European Communities,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         inasmuch as it was held in that judgment that the
European Communities by letter of 7 February 1997 from                         respondent to the appeal was entitled to the
Retten i Aalborg (Aalborg Court), which was received at                        installation allowance provided for by the first
the Court Registry on 12 February 1997, for a preliminary                      subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Annex VII to the Staff
ruling in the case between Foreningen af danske Video                         Regulations merely because she was in receipt of the
gramdistributorer ( Association            of Danish Video                     expatriation allowance,
Distributors), acting for Egmont Film A/S and Others, and
                                                                        — make an appropriate order as to costs .
Laserdisken, in the person of Hans Kristian Pedersen,
Interveners: Sammenslutningen af Danske Filminstruktorer                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Union of Danish Film Directors ) and Others on the
following questions :                                                   The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
                                                                        the mere fact that the respondent to the appeal was
Do Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with                     entitled to an expatriation allowance — because,
Article 36 , or Articles 85 to 86 preclude a person to                  technically, she fulfilled the conditions laid down in
whom the holder of the exclusive rights to a film has                   Article 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations —
transferred an exclusive manufacturing and distribution                 meant that she satisfied, de facto, the conditions rendering
 right in respect of copies of the film in one Member State             her eligible for the installation allowance . The
 from giving consent to the rental of his own releases while            Commission considers that it is clear from the wording of
 at the same time preventing the rental of imported releases            Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, from the heading
 which have been placed on the market in another Member                 under which that article appears in the Staff Regulations
 State, where the holder of exclusive manufacturing and                 and from the title of Section 3 of Annex VII, of which the
 distribution rights in copies of the film has transferred               first subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) forms part, that, like
 ownership of copies with tacit acceptance that the copies              the other allowances covered by Section 3 , the installation
 will be rented out in that latter Member State ?
                                                                         allowance is not a sum automatically added to the salary
                                                                         of the person concerned but is intended to cover expenses
 In view of the fact that Council Directive 92/ 100/EEC ( ] )            actually incurred or which may be incurred. The effect
 of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right                   and purpose of the installation allowance also militate in
 and on certain rights relating to copyright in the field of             favour of that interpretation .
 intellectual property has entered into force, the same
 question is repeated on the basis that the Directive is
 applicable to the reply.
  (') OJ No L 346, 27. 11 . 1992, p. 61 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 7 February
                                                                          1997 in the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and
                                                                                2 . BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik
                                                                                ( Case C-63/97 )
  Appeal brought on 12 February 1997 by the Commission
  of the European Communities against the judgment                                                   ( 97/C 108/27)
  delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Second Chamber
  of the Court of First Instance of the European                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  Communities     in   Case T-33/95        between Maria Lidia            European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
  Lozano Palacios and the Commission of the European                      der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), of
                              Communities                                 7 February 1997, which was received at the Court
                         ( Case C-62/97 P                                 Registry on 13 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and 2 . BMW
                             ( 97/C 108/26 )
                                                                          Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik on the following
                                                                          questions :
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
   1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                       ( a ) In view of the fact that, with regard to the rights
   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-33/95                         associated with a trade mark, Directive 89/104/EEC ( J )
   between    Maria     Lidia      Lozano     Palacios   and    the              contains a transitional legal provision only for the
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97                        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/ 15
        purpose of the case described in Article 5 (4 ), are                          to an appreciable extent for the purpose of advertising
        Member States otherwise free to lay down rules on the                         his own business as such by creating a specific
        matter, or does Community law in general, or the                              suggestion of quality ?
        objective and tenor of Directive 89/104/EEC in
        particular, have the effect that Member States are not                   (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989, p . 1 .
        entirely free in that regard but must comply with
        specific restrictions, and if so which ?
( b ) If someone, without the authorization of the trade                         Action brought on 14 February 1997 by the Commission
        mark proprietor, makes use of that proprietor's trade                    of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
        mark, registered exclusively for specified goods, for                                               ( Case C-64/97)
        the purpose of announcing to the public that he (A )
        carries out repair and maintenance work on the goods                                                  ( 97/C 108/28 )
        which have been placed on the market under that
        trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent, or                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
         that he ( B ) is a specialist or is specialized with regard             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        to such goods, does this, under the scheme of Article 5                  14 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
         of the Directive, involve :                                             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                                Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
         (i)       use of the trade mark in relation to goods which              in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                   are identical to those for which it was registered,           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                   as referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a );                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
         ( ii ) use of that trade mark in relation to services
                   which must be deemed to constitute use of the
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993
                   trade mark within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a )
                   or use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5               amending Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation
                                                                                of the laws of the Member States relating to personal
                   ( 1 ) ( b ), on the assumption that it can be stated
                                                                                protective equipment ( PPE ) ( 1 ), the Italian Republic
                   that there is an identity between those services
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                   and the goods for which the trade mark was
                   registered;                                                   — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         ( iii ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5
                   (2 ; or                                                       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
          ( iv ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5                upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                    ( 5 )?                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                                down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
                                                                                expired on 29 January 1994 without the Italian Republic
 (c ) For the purpose of answering Question ( b ), does it                        having brought into force the necessary provisions in
          make any difference whether announcement ( A) or                        order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
          announcement ( B ) is involved ?                                        Commission 's application.
                                                                                O OJ No L 276 , 9 . 11 . 1993 , p . 11 .
  ( d ) In the light of the provision in Article 7 of the
          Directive, does it make any difference, with regard to
          the question whether the proprietor of the trade mark
          can prevent use of his trade mark registered
          exclusively for specified goods, whether the use                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
          referred to in Question ( b) is that under points ( i ), ( ii ),        Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 29 January
           ( iii ) or ( iv )?                                                     1997 in the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA,
                                                                                against CTV — Confec^oes Texteis de Vouzela, Lda.,
                                                                                Amandio Mauricio Martins Pechim and Maria de Luz
   ( e ) On the assumption that both or one of the cases                                           Lima Barros Raposo Pechim
           described at the start of Question ( b ) involve the use
                                                                                ( Case C-66/97)
           of the proprietor's trade mark within the meaning of
           Article 5 ( 1 ), whether under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a ) or ( b ),                                       ( 97/C 108/29
           can the proprietor prevent that use only where the
           person thus using the trade mark thereby creates the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           impression that his undertaking is affiliated to the                    European Communities by order of the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
           trade-mark proprietor's network, or can he also                         Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of
            prevent that use where there is a good chance that the                 29 January 1997, which was received at the Court
            manner in which the trade mark is used for those                       Registry on 17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
            announcements may create an impression among the                       the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, against CTV
            public that the trade mark is in that regard being used                — Confeccoes         Texteis       de  Vouzela, Lda ., Amandio


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2003 in Case T-348/02: Quick restaurants SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Trade mark consisting of the word Quick — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Registration refused in part)

text:
C 21/34                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 15 October 2003
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                          in Case T-372/02: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Development cooperation — European Community
                                                                          Humanitarian Office — Framework partnership agreement
                                                                          for the co-financing of operations carried out by NGOs —
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Rejection of an application — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissible)
                     of 27 November 2003
                                                                                (2004/C 21/73)
in Case T-348/02: Quick restaurants SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                      Designs) (OHIM)1 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — Trade mark consisting of the
word Quick — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive
character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                  Registration refused in part)
                                                                          In Case T-372/02, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in
                                                                          Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, v
                          (2004/C 21/72)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Wil-
                                                                          derspin and S. Fries): Application for (i) annulment of the
                                                                          Commission’s decision of 22 October 2002 rejecting the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         application by the applicant to sign a framework partnership
                                                                          agreement with the European Community Humanitarian
                                                                          Office (ECHO), (ii) an order requiring the Commission either
                                                                          to reinstate the applicant in the position it had in 1996 when
                                                                          it applied to sign a framework partnership agreement or,
In Case T-348/02, Quick restaurants SA, established in Brussels           alternatively, to invite it to sign the framework partnership
(Belgium), represented by L. Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an                  agreement now in force and (iii) an order requiring the
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation             Commission to reimburse to the applicant the costs relating to
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                   its complaint to the European Ombudsman, the Court of First
(Agents: A. Rassat and S. Laitinen): Action for partial annul-            Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
ment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                 R. García-Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              has made an order on 15 October 2003, the operative part of
and Designs) of 17 September 2002 (Case R 1117/2000-2)                    which is as follows:
concerning registration of the word Quick as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on              1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible in its entirety.
27 November 2003, in which it:
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                     Commission.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.
(1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-510/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Article 25 — Directive 2009/73/EC — Articles 41 and 54 — Temporal application — Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 — Article 5 — Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures — Decision of a regulatory authority — Right to bring an action — Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal
   (Case C-510/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2003/55/EC - Article 25 - Directive 2009/73/EC - Articles 41 and 54 - Temporal application - Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 - Article 5 - Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures - Decision of a regulatory authority - Right to bring an action - Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority))
   (2015/C 155/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt

      Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, the period allowed for whose transposition expired on 3 March 2011 and, in particular, the new provisions introduced in Article 41(17) thereof, must be interpreted as not applying to an action against a decision of a regulatory authority, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted before the expiry of that period allowed for transposition and which was still pending on that date.

               2)

               Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, read in conjunction with the Annex to that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the exercise of rights of action before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of acts of a regulatory authority, which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not make it possible to confer on an operator, such as E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt, locus standi for the purpose of bringing an action against a decision of that authority relating to the gas network code.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case C-489/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 12 October 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 12 October 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda
   (Case C-489/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Party to the main proceedings

   Łukasz Marcin Bonda

      Question referred

   What is the legal nature of the sanction provided for in Article 138 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1) which consists in refusing a farmer direct payments in the years immediately following the year in which he submitted an incorrect statement as to the size of the area forming the basis for direct payments?


title: Case C-175/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Pietro Calogero v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/33

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Pietro Calogero v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-175/10)
      (2010/C 161/49)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pietro Calogero

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case T-120/08: Judgment of the General Court of (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Health policy — Marketing of biocidal products — Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility — Default procedure)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

         Judgment of the General Court of (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission
   (Case T-120/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Health policy - Marketing of biocidal products - Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility - Default procedure)
   2011/C 319/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, Connecticut, United States); Arch Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom); Rhodia UK Ltd (Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom); Troy Chemical Co. BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Kružíková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by Y. van Gerven and V. Terrien, and subsequently by Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 3(2), Article 4, Article 7(3), the second subparagraph of Article 14(2), Article 15(3), Article 17 of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007, L 325, p. 3)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.