title: Case T-223/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2017 — Morton’s of Chicago v EUIPO — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark MORTON’S — Earlier non-registered national trade marks MORTON’S, MORTONS, MORTON’S CLUB, MORTONS CLUB, MORTON’S THE RESTAURANT, MORTONS RESTAURANT and M MORTON’S — Relative ground for refusal — Declaration of invalidity — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2017 — Morton’s of Chicago v EUIPO — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)
   (Case T-223/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark MORTON’S - Earlier non-registered national trade marks MORTON’S, MORTONS, MORTON’S CLUB, MORTONS CLUB, MORTON’S THE RESTAURANT, MORTONS RESTAURANT and M MORTON’S - Relative ground for refusal - Declaration of invalidity - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mortons the Restaurant Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor, and P. Nagpal, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2015 (Case R 46/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mortons The Restaurant and Morton’s of Chicago.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-583/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — PG v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Renewal procedure — Article 266 TFEU — Duty of care — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — PG v Frontex
   (Case T-583/16)
   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Renewal procedure - Article 266 TFEU - Duty of care - Non-contractual liability))
   (2017/C 221/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 9 June 2015, taken by the authority in Frontex empowered to conclude contracts of employment, not to renew the applicant’s contract and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr PG to pay the costs.


title: Case F-94/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Carpenito v Council

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/41

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Carpenito v Council
   (Case F-94/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Renzo Carpenito (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the retention of the effects of the contested salary statements until the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, and for compensation in respect of the applicant’s financial loss and his pain and suffering

      Form of order sought

               —

               Retain the effects of the contested salary statements until the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Regulation No 1296/2009;

               —

               order the Council to compensate the applicant for his financial loss in an amount equivalent to the loss of remuneration resulting from the manifestly unlawful application of Regulation No 1296/2009, to which must be added reimbursement of the special monthly charge deducted since January 2010 pursuant to Article 66a of the Statute, the rate of which was wrongly fixed in the light of that regulation. That amount is estimated, subject to the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation, at EUR 30 000;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant the symbolic amount of EUR 1 as compensation for his pain and suffering;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-98/11 P: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2012 — AG v Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Time-limit for bringing action — Lateness — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/24

         Order of the General Court of 10 February 2012 — AG v Parliament
   (Case T-98/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Time-limit for bringing action - Lateness - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2012/C 89/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: AG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and V. Montebello-Demogeot, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10 AG v Parliament, not yet reported in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal as dismissed as clearly unfounded.

               2.

               AG is ordered to pay, apart from its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 7 February 1996 by Stephen Pascall against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/96)

text:
No C 108/12             EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 4 . 96
decision, the Commission holds that the aid is limited to the           Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1996
interest-free element . The applicant, on the other hand,               by Stephen Pascall , residing in Brussels, represented by
considers that the aid is represented not only by the grant of          Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
the loan on an interest-free basis but also by the full amount          the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
of the loan .                                                           at the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue
                                                                        Glesener .
Pleas in support of the applicant's action for annulment:
1 . The Commission Decision , in that it holds that only the            The applicant claims that the Court should :
     interest-free element and not the loan itself amounts to
     State aid, constitutes an incorrect application of                 — annul the Commission's decision of 26 June 1995
     Article 92 of the EC Treaty. It would seem that when                    withdrawing its decision of 18 October 1994 awarding
     applying the market economy investor principle, the                     the applicant an additional step ;
     Commission is of the opinion that the application of the
     principle leads to different results according to whether
     the State aid takes the form of a capital injection or a           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     loan . This constitutes a misinterpretation of Article 92
     ( 1 ) of the Treaty .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . In failing to characterize the full amount of the loan as
     aid, the Commission has committed manifest errors of               The applicant states that he entered the employment of the
     assessment :                                                       Commission as a temporary agent in the scientific service on
                                                                        1 December 1986 . Following his success in an internal
     — the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the                  competition, he was appointed an official at Grade A 4,
           'loan ' was granted on an interest-free basis . This         step 4, on 6 May 1994 , with effect from 1 April 1994, and
           element in itself should have led the Commission to          was assigned to the post he had held as a temporary agent.
           conclude that the so-called loan was in fact akin to a       By decision of 18 October 1994, he was awarded an
           subsidy or at the very least was certainly not a             additional step pursuant to Article 97 ( 1 ) of the Staff
           normal loan transaction,                                     Regulations of officials of the European Communities . On
                                                                        26 June 1995 , the appointing authority decided to withdraw
     — the unusual or exceptional nature of the loan is                 that decision on the ground that, since 1 April 1994, the
           further confirmed by the fact that, on the one hand,         applicant no longer belonged to the scientific or technical
           the loan was granted on a totally unsecured basis            services of the Community .
           and, on the other hand , the aid was granted on a
           purely ad hoc basis and not pursuant to the
           legislation applicable to aids in the Flemish                In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, breach of
           Region,
                                                                        the requirement to state reasons, claiming that the contested
                                                                        decision does not provide sufficient information to allow
                                                                        him to ascertain whether it was well founded and whether it
     — the Commission manifestly misjudged VLM's
           financial situation which, contrary to what the              was appropriate to bring an action before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance .
           Commission states in its decision, underwent further
           substantial deterioration in the course of 1994 .
                                                                        He also alleges breach of the principle of legal certainty and
3 . By failing to take account of the applicant's observations          claims that it is unlawful to withdraw a decision which
     and by failing to give the applicant the opportunity to            conferred individual rights . In that regard, he states that
     comment on the replies furnished by the Belgian                    even if the decision of 1 8 October 1 994 had been improperly
     authorities, the Commission has infringed Article 190 of           adopted , the appointing authority could only withdraw it
     the EC Treaty .                                                    within a reasonable period; in this instance , it was not until
                                                                        more than eight months after the decision was adopted that
                                                                        the appointing authority withdrew it, which is an
                                                                         unacceptable lapse of time .
                                                                         Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision
  Action brought on 7 February 1996 by Stephen Pascall                   infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    expectations . He claims that when the appointing authority
                           ( Case T-20/96 )                              awarded him the additional step, it must have known that he
                                                                         had already been appointed as an official; it is indisputable,
                             ( 96/C 108/26 )                             therefore , that in adopting that decision the appointing
                                                                         authority raised reasonable expectations on the applicant's
                   (Language of the case: Frencb)                        part .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-34/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement in the territory of the Member States — Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent — Consequences of the right of residence of the minor child on the employment law requirements to be fulfilled by the third-country national ascendant relative of that minor)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)
   (Case C-34/09) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement in the territory of the Member States - Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent - Consequences of the right of residence of the minor child on the employment law requirements to be fulfilled by the third-country national ascendant relative of that minor)
   2011/C 130/02
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano

      Defendant: Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Grant of right of residence to a European Union citizen on the territory of the Member State of which that citizen is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement? — Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-250/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the action brought by Doctor Giorgio Emanuele Mauri against Ministry of Justice

text:
C 200/12              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ammi-                Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992
nistrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that                   concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certifi-
Court of 13 November 2002 in the action brought by                       cate for medicinal products (1)?
Doctor Giorgio Emanuele Mauri against Ministry of Justice
                                                                         (1) OJ L 182 of 2.7.1992, p. 1.
                         (Case C-250/03)
                         (2003/C 200/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Administrative                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
Court for Lombardy) of 13 November 2002, received at the                 by order of that Court of 1 April 2003 in the proceedings
Court Registry on 11 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in                    between CLT-UFA S.A. and Finanzamt Köln-West
the action brought by Doctor Giorgio Emanuele Mauri against
Ministry of Justice on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-253/03)
Must the provisions of the Treaty enshrining, as interpreted by
the Court of Justice, the Community principles concerning
competition and non-discrimination, be interpreted as                                             (2003/C 200/20)
precluding on the ground of illegality national legislation, in
particular Article 22 of legislative decree no 1578 of
27 November 1933, which makes access to legal practice
before the courts subject to success in a prior State examina-           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion inasmuch as, for the purposes of assessment of aptitude             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
and professional ability, it confers far-reaching powers on the          (Federal Finance Court) of 1 April 2003, received at the Court
local management entities of the professional body to which              Registry on 13 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
the practitioners already operating in the specific geographical         proceedings between CLT-UFA S.A. and Finanzamt (District Tax
territory belong.                                                        Office) Köln-West on the following questions:
                                                                         1.    Is Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that charging the
                                                                               profits made in 1994 by a capital company from another
                                                                               Member State through a branch in Germany to German
                                                                               corporation tax at the rate of 42 % (the ‘place of business
                                                                               tax rate’) constitutes an infringement of the right to
                                                                               freedom of establishment, given that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the
appeal brought by the Minister for the Economy against                         —    the profits would have been charged to German
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeu-                             corporation tax at the rate of only 33,5 % if they
                             tics Inc.                                              had been made by a company subject to unlimited
                                                                                corporation tax in Germany which was a subsidiary
                                                                                of a capital company from another Member State
                         (Case C-252/03)                                            and had distributed all the profits to its parent by
                                                                                the end of 30 June 1996,
                         (2003/C 200/19)
                                                                               —    the profits would initially have been charged to
                                                                                German corporation tax at the rate of 45 % if the
                                                                                subsidiary had retained them until the end of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              30 June 1996, but the liability to corporation tax
European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative                            would have been reduced retrospectively to 30 % if
(Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the Court                        the profits had been distributed in full after 30 June
Registry on 13 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                           1996?
appeal brought by the Minister for the Economy against
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeutics
Inc. on the following question:                                          2.    If the place of business tax rate infringes Article 52 in
                                                                               conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty, is it
                                                                               necessary to reduce it to 30 % for the year in dispute in
Does a marketing authorisation issued by the Swiss authorities                 order to cure the infringement?
constitute the first authorisation to place a product on the
market in the Community within the meaning of Article 13 of


title: Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Duration of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Attributability of unlawful conduct)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Duration of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Attributability of unlawful conduct)
   2013/C 325/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Keramag Keramische Werke AG (Ratingen, Germany); Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH (Vlotho, Germany); Koninklijke Sphinx BV (Maastricht, Netherlands); Allia SAS (Avon, France); Produits Céramique de Touraine SA (Selles-sur-Cher, France); Pozzi Ginori SpA (Milan, Italy) (Case T-379/10); Sanitec Europe Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (Case T-381/10) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, I. Reynolds, Solicitor, and P. Lindfelt and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls point (6) of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as the European Commission finds (i) that Allia SAS and Produits Céramique de Touraine SA participated in an infringement relating to a cartel on the French market for a period from 25 February 2004 to 9 November 2004 and (ii) that Pozzi Ginori SpA participated in an infringement relating to a cartel on the Italian market for a period other than that from 14 May 1996 to 9 March 2001;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(7) of Decision C(2010) 4185 final in so far as the total amount of the fine imposed on Keramag Keramische Werke AG, Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH, Koninklijke Sphinx BV, Pozzi Ginori and Sanitec Europe Oy exceeds EUR 50 580 701;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Keramag Keramische Werke, Koralle Sanitärprodukte, Koninklijke Sphinx, Allia, Produits Céramique de Touraine, Pozzi Ginori and Sanitec Europe to bear three quarters of their own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to pay a quarter of the costs incurred by Keramag Keramische Werke, Koralle Sanitärprodukte, Koninklijke Sphinx, Allia, Produits Céramique de Touraine, Pozzi Ginori and Sanitec Europe and to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-33/05: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cetarsa v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Cooperation)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cetarsa v Commission
   (Case T-33/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)
   2011/C 89/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) (Navalmoral de la Mata, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and A. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), secondly and in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision and, thirdly, a counterclaim by the Commission seeking to have that amount increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain) at EUR 3 147 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

               4.

               Orders Cetarsa to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear two-tenths of its own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by Cetarsa.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/63

         Removal from the Register of Case T-58/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/128)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-58/97, H. Heringa v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997


title: Case C-343/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
4.10.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 239/5
     —    Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in its           —     Breach of the obligation to provide reasons enshrined in
          wording in force at the material time, did not                      Article 253 of the EC Treaty: the Commission’s decision
          distinguish between the various aid schemes so far                  does not indicate what aspect of the conduct of the
          as concerned the obligation to check 5 % of the                     Portuguese authorities was contrary to Community law
          ‘animal’ aid applications during the retention period,              nor which Community legislation was infringed thereby.
          so that, contrary to the Commission’s contention,                   The decision therefore does not fulfil the obligation to
          the Portuguese authorities acted in conformity with                 provide reasons. That requirement is stricter where at
          the provision in issue.                                             issue is the adoption of measures which impose sanctions
                                                                              on or entail adverse consequences, in particular in
                                                                              financial terms, for those to whom it is addressed, as in
                                                                              the present case. In those circumstances, fulfilment of the
                                                                              obligation to provide reasons is essential in order to
                                                                              protect the rights of defence of the person or body
                                                                              affected by the adverse consequences flowing from the
     —    by applying in this case Article 6(5) of Regulation                 measure.
          No 3887/92 as amended by Regulation (EC)
          No 2801/99, rather than the version in force at
          the material time, the Commission is applying
          retrospectively a new provision, which is contrary            (1 ) OJ 2003 L 124, p. 45.
          to the general principles of law common to the
          Member States.
—    Error of assessment of the facts with regard to the
     expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities for
     1999 concerning the premium for the maintenance of                 Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission
     the suckler cow herd:                                              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Denmark
                                                                                (Case C-343/03)
     —    The alleged irregularities regarding the identification
          of the animals, which the Commission claims to                                         (2003/C 239/07)
          have detected in checks carried out in holdings in
          the Alentejo region in September 2000, are of
          no relevance to the application of the flat-rate
          corrections applied to expenditure in respect of
          the 1999 financial year. In the alternative, the              An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
          Portuguese Government takes the view that the                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          irregularities alleged by the Commission are irrel-           on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
          evant, since Portugal has complied and continues to           Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agent,
          comply with the rules relating to the identification          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
          of bovine animals.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.    declare that
     —    The Commission further alleges, as the basis for
          applying the financial correction, that some animals                —    by failing to adopt detailed rules for the utilisation
          bore producer markings bearing an identification                         of the quotas allocated to Denmark,
          number which was not that accorded by the com-
          petent authorities, and considers that the practice
          increases the risk that a premium might be paid                     —    by failing to ensure compliance with the EC pro-
          more than once in respect of the same animal.                            visions on the conservation of fishery resources by
          Again in that respect the Commission erred in its                        means of monitoring of fishing activity, appropriate
          assessment of the relevant facts by failing to take                      inspections of landings and registration of catches,
          account of the actual circumstances in which the                         and criminal or administrative proceedings against
          said practice occurred.                                                  those responsible for overfishing,
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
        —     by failing to issue a provisional prohibition of                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
              fishing from fishing vessels flying the Danish flag or
              registered in Denmark when the quota allocated was              1)     declare that by failing to implement Council Directive 77/
              to be deemed to have been exhausted, and by failing                    799/EEC (1) of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual
              to inform the Commission when the halt to fishing                      assistance by the competent authorities of the Member
              was introduced,                                                        States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as
                                                                                amended, in the territory of Gibraltar, the United
        the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations                  Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
        both under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/                          Treaty;
        83 ( 1), and under Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of
        Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 (2);
                                                                              2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
2.      order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended, was to be implemented by
Disregard of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/                 the Member States not later than 1 January 1981 as regards
83 and of Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation
                                                                              value added tax (by virtue of Directive 79/1070/EEC ( 2)) and
(EEC) No 2241/87.
                                                                              1 January 1993 as regards excise duties (by virtue of Directive
                                                                              92/12/EEC (3)).
The Danish Government has acknowledged that for certain
stocks the quotas allocated for the year 1998 were substantially
exceeded. The monitoring carried out of fishery activities and                Contrary to the view taken by the United Kingdom, the
the measures taken concerning the management and control of                   Commission maintains that Directive 77/799/EEC, as
those activities were in the Commission’s opinion inadequate.                 amended, applies to Gibraltar and that by failing to implement
                                                                              the directive in this territory the United Kingdom has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
The Danish authorities moreover in certain cases omitted to
bring criminal proceedings agains the persons responsible for
non-compliance with the rules on control and conservation.                    (1 ) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.
                                                                              (2 ) of 6 December 1979 amending Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 331,
                                                                                27.12.1979, p. 8).
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                    (3 ) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
     establishing a Community system for the conservation and                      subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
     management of fishery resources, OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.                  monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
     lishing certain control measures for fishing activities, OJ L 207 of
     29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                              Appeal brought on 21 August 2003 (facsimile received on
Action brought on 7 August 2003 by the Commission of                          16 August 2003) by El Corte Inglés, SA against the order
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                           delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case T-63/03 El Corte Inglés
               of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                          SA v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings before
                                                                                the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio Yvonne S.r.l.
                           (Case C-349/03)
                                                                                (Case C-361/03 P)
                           (2003/C 239/08)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/09)
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 7 August 2003 by the                           An appeal against the order delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                        T-63/03 El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM, the other party to the
R. Lyal, acting as agent, with an address for service in                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio
Luxembourg.                                                                   Yvonne S.r.l., was brought before the Court of Justice of the


title: Case C-354/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Dismissal — Ground — Obesity of the worker — General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity — Lack — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability — Existence of a ‘disability’

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune
   (Case C-354/13) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Dismissal - Ground - Obesity of the worker - General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity - Lack - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability - Existence of a ‘disability’)
   (2015/C 065/09)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Retten i Kolding, Civilretten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft

      Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               EU law must be interpreted as not laying down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such as regards employment and occupation;

               2)

               Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of that directive where it entails a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the main proceedings, those conditions are met.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-69/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/79

         Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council
   (Case T-69/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/175
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) are not to apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-106/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 March 2011 — M.J. Bakker v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 March 2011 — M.J. Bakker v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-106/11)
   2011/C 160/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M.J. Bakker

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the designation rules in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) applicable in a case such as the present, where an employed person with Netherlands nationality residing in Spain is employed as a seafarer by an employer established in the Netherlands, and carries out his work on board dredgers which navigate outside the territory of the Community under the Netherlands flag, with the result that the legislation of the Netherlands is designated as the legislation applicable, so that consequently Netherlands national insurance contributions may be levied, whereas judging solely on the basis of the national legislation of the Netherlands he is not affiliated to the Netherlands social security scheme as a result of the fact that he does not reside in the Netherlands?

               2.

               To what extent is it important in that regard that in the implementation of the Netherlands employed persons’ insurance scheme a policy is followed by virtue of which seafarers in a case such as the present are considered by the implementing body to be insured persons on the basis of Community law?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English special edition, 1971 (II), p. 416).


               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-117/04 (1)

   (2005/C 6/62)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 6 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-117/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)   OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-44/14: Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/26

         Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission
   (Case T-44/14)
   2014/C 93/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Galązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens' Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and Independence is a fundamental right!’, (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer and A. Woods, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case T-205/14: Action brought on 27 March 2014  — Schroeder v Council and Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/33

         Action brought on 27 March 2014 — Schroeder v Council and Commission
   (Case T-205/14)
   2014/C 212/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 45  644 together with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment, or to declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation from the defendants;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks compensation on account of the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008, (1) which was declared invalid by judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2012 in Case C-338/10 GLS.
   The applicant submits that although the anti-dumping duties wrongly collected on the basis of that regulation have been refunded by the national customs authorities, it suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that it was compelled by the withdrawal of liquidity to obtain additional bank loans at the usual market rates of interest. The applicant therefore seeks reimbursement of the difference between the interest it paid on its bank loans and the lower amount of interest that it would have had to pay if no anti-dumping duties had been collected. The applicant submits in that regard that, by unlawfully adopting Regulation No 1355/2008, the defendants committed a sufficiently serious breach of their duty of due care and proper administration, resulting in a loss to the applicant for which compensation is not otherwise available, since there is no provision under the relevant national rules on import duties for interest to be paid on the amount of any difference in favour of the person liable to pay import duties, from the time of payment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35).


title: Case C-247/99 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by Elf Atochem SA against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/4, T-328/4, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between LVM NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.12.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 352/13
— reduce the amount of the fine by a sum which corresponds                  Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by Elf Atochem SA against
    to the damage sustained by Montedison by reason of the                  the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third
    duration of the proceeding, the issue of a fresh decision in            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    lieu of the annulled decision, and the cost of the security             Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
    guarantee;                                                              T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
                                                                            T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/4, T-328/4, T-329/94
Costs:                                                                      and T-335/94 between LVM NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF
                                                                            AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM
— order the Commission to pay the applicant the whole of                    NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH,
    the costs and fees relating to the proceedings at first                 Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison
    instance and on appeal.                                                 SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and
                                                                            Enichem SpA and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-247/99 P)
1. The Court of First Instance failed to consider the first
    ground of challenge raised by the applicant (the fact that
    the Commission exercised and exhausted its powers in                                             (1999/C 352/22)
    relation to the facts at issue); definitive conferment upon
    the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice of the
    powers relating to the fines; infringement of Article 172 of            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
    the EC Treaty (now Article 229 EC) and Article 17 of                    by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
    Council Regulation No 17/62 (1) in relation to                          First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
    Article 87(2)(d) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
    Article 83 EC).                                                         T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                                                            T-329/94 and T-335/94 between LVM NV, Elf Atochem SA,
2. Failure to give reasons in relation to the second ground of              BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM
    challenge (non-existence of the proceeding).                            NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH,
                                                                            Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA,
3. Fai1ure to consider the economic context. Breach of the                  Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA
    principle of Community law according to which, whenever                 and the Commission of the European Communities was
    an assessment is made of competitive conduct, an evalu-                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
    ation of the economic and legislative context must first be             ties on 2 July 1999 by Elf Atochem SA, represented by Xavier
    carried out. Breach of the principle of Community law                   de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    according to which, where an undertaking is able to offer               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
    a non-anticompetitive justification for its conduct, it                 Goethe.
    cannot be held to have infringed Article 85 and 86 of the
    EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC).
4. The Court of First Instance appears to have misapplied the               The appellant claims that the Court should:
    rules laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 (2) as regards
    time-limits.
                                                                            — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                20 April 1999 in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94,
5. Infringement of the right to an individual defence rather
                                                                                T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94,
    than a collective defence.                                                   T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94,
                                                                                drawing the legal consequences from such annulment, and
6. Infringement of Article 6(1) of the European Convention                       in particular ruling definitively on the dispute itself;
    on Human Rights in that the Court of First Instance
    to consider documentary evidence for the defence and
    excluded, without valid reasons, additional documentary                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    evidence in favour of Montedison.
7. Clear lack of logic, and/or failure to consider defence
    arguments put forward to the effect that the amount of the
    fine was out of proportion to the seriousness and duration              Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the conduct.
8. Failure to consider evidence of the damage sustained by                  — Error of law in that the Court of First Instance refrained
    Montedison and breach of the principle of the Com-                           from finding that the Commission adopted a new decision
    mission’s responsibility for unlawful conduct.                               on 27 July 1994. The annulment of the 1988 decision by
                                                                                the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 April 1994
                                                                                necessarily entailed the annulment of the whole of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition (59-62), I, p. 87.                               prior administrative procedure. The Commission could
(2) OJ L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1.                                                therefore take a new decision, distinct from that of 1988,
                                                                                only at the conclusion of a new proceeding. The 1994
                                                                                decision did not have the same addressees, Norsk Hydro
                                                                                and Solvay not being among them. However, the conduct
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/14              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.12.1999
   of those undertakings continues to be taken into account               Appeal brought on 3 July 1999 by Degussa-Hüls AG
   by the Commission in determining the significance of the               against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the
   alleged infringement. The 1988 and 1994 decisions thus                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
   concern alleged agreements and/or concerted practices                  First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
   between a group whose members were different in 1994                   Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   from 1988. A third difference concerns developments by                 T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   1994 decision of the limitation of the Commission’s action             T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maat-
   in order to justify its legal ability to take a new decision.          schappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell Inter-
                                                                          national Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM
                                                                          Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG,
                                                                          Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial
   The Court of First Instance wrongly endorses the Com-                  Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and
   mission’s argument that, in its judgment of 15 June 1994,                     the Commission of the European Communities
   the Court of Justice limited the scope of the annulment of
   the 1988 decision to a simple lack of authentication,                                          (Case C-250/99 P)
   whereas the judgment annulled the decision for infringe-
   ment of both the rules on authentication and the col-                                           (1999/C 352/23)
   legiality principle.
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
                                                                          by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   It was essential in this case to adopt a new decision and
                                                                          T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   open an administrative proceeding accordingly by reason
                                                                          T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   of the principle that Commission decisions must be
                                                                          T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschap-
   individual decisions.
                                                                          pij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International
                                                                          Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV,
                                                                          Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de
                                                                          Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
— Error of law in that the Court of First Instance did not hold           Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the
   that the Commission’s adoption of a new decision opened                European Communities was brought before the Court of
   procedural rights for the benefit of the applicants. Contrary          Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 1999 by
   to the findings of the Court of First Instance, it was of little       Degussa-Hüls AG, represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt,
   importance whether or not the new decision contained                   of Messrs Freshfields Deringer, Cologne, with an address for
   new objections by comparison with the old one. The 1994                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11
   decision being a new decision, the Commission could not                Rue Goethe.
   purely and simply resume the objections from a previous
   annulled decision without effecting fresh notification to
   the parties concerned in accordance with Regulation                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
   17/62. Further, the right of the accused undertakings to
   submit their written comments and participate in hearings              1. set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
   was not acknowledged.                                                      Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on
                                                                              20 April 1999 in Case T-329/94 in so far as it dismisses
                                                                              the appellant’s claim (paragraph 4 of the operative part)
                                                                              and orders the appellant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                              the costs of the Commission (paragraph 5 of the operative
   It was also wrong that no reference was made to the                        part);
   Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Domi-
   nant Positions, and wrong for the Court of First Instance,             2. annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
   by establishing a link to the hearing of the parties which                 94/599/EC of 27 July 1994 (1) relating to a proceeding
   had a completely different subject-matter, purportedly to                  pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/31.865 —
   deny, without foundation, that there was an obligation to                  PVC), in so far as they concern the appellant;
   that effect.
                                                                          3. order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              at first instance and of the appeal.
   Compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulations
   17/62 and 99/63 would have allowed account to be taken                 Pleas in law and main arguments
   of the latest state of the Community case-law on access to
   the file, as required by Commission Notice 97/C 23/03 of               — Error of law in relation to the general principle requiring
   23 January 1997 (OJ 1997 C 23,p.3).                                        proceedings to be of a reasonable duration: the Court of
                                                                              First Instance disregarded, first of all, the fact that the total
                                                                              duration of the proceedings, which lasted 16 years, cannot
                                                                              be regarded as reasonable. Furthermore, it was wrong to
                                                                              take the view that the duration of the administrative
                                                                              proceeding was reasonable. Finally, the excessive length of
                                                                              the judicial proceedings constitutes in itself an infringe-
                                                                              ment of the parties’ right to have the matter decided within
                                                                              a reasonable time.


title: Case F-29/13 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 October 2015 — Drakeford v EMA

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/66

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 October 2015 — Drakeford v EMA
   (Case F-29/13 RENV)
   (2015/C 389/76)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-167/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/14

         Appeal brought on 24 April 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission
   (Case T-167/09 P)
   2009/C 167/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission;

               —

               order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this appeal, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court of First Instance to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission, by which the Tribunal annulled Mr Liotti’s career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission advances three pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               an infringement of Community law in so far as Article 8(7) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the GIP’) does not lay down an obligation at countersigning officer level, or even at Director-General level, to consider the application of appraisal rules in all draft CDRs for a particular grade;

               —

               breaches of procedure before the Tribunal adversely affecting the Commission’s interests since, by raising of its own motion at the hearing the requirements of concertation and consistency provided for in Article 8(7) of the GIP, the Tribunal infringed the Commission’s rights of defence by depriving it of the opportunity to produce conclusive factual evidence to prove that there was no infringement of Article 8(7) of the GIP when the CDR at issue was drawn up;

               —

               an error of law in so far as the Tribunal treated the failure to take account of the provisions of Article 8(3) of the GIP as an infringement of an essential procedural requirement and/or a substantial irregularity resulting in the annulment of the CDR in dispute before the Tribunal.


title: Case C-301/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (Fax: 27 July 2005) by Hans-Peter Wilfer against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/03 Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/4

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (Fax: 27 July 2005) by Hans-Peter Wilfer against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/03 Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-301/05 P)
   (2005/C 281/09)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/03 between Hans-Peter Wilfer and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by Hans-Peter Wilfer, represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, of Kanzlei Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstraße 48, D-80538 Munich, Germany.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside, in its entirety, paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-315/03 (1) under appeal, and set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part, in so far as to order OHIM to pay all of its own costs and those incurred by the applicant;

               2.

               order OHIM to pay the remainder of the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   In his appeal against the abovementioned judgment, the appellant relies on pleas of procedural irregularities and an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance:

               1.

               As regards the question whether, or to what extent, the appellant can be represented and assisted by a patent agent, the Court misinterpreted Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Under that provision, the term ‘lawyer’ also covers patent agents provided that their legal system authorises them to represent parties before a court and provided that their national legal order grants them a status within their legal system which, in terms of the rights and responsibilities transferred to them, is comparable to that of a lawyer.

               2.

               In assessing the questions whether, or to what extent, the attestation concerning the registration of US trade mark 76/302,601 ‘ROCKBASS’ and the new arguments and evidence contained in the appellant's written statement were to be considered in the present proceedings, the Court not only misjudged the scope of the principle of examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion in Article 74 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (2), but also misapplied the provisions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof.

               3.

               As regards the meaning and grammatical structure of the sign ‘ROCKBASS’, the Court misrepresented or falsified the facts submitted. The Court overlooked the fact that the sign ‘ROCKBASS’ is extremely complex and did not consider that many different grammatical combinations are possible for that mark. Since the Court did not give any reasons for those misrepresentations it also breached its duty to give reasons.

               4.

               The Court misrepresented or falsified the facts submitted as regards the possibility of using the goods in Classes 9 and 18 independently of the goods claimed in Class 15 and, since it did not provide any coherent reasons for doing so, it thereby also breached its duty to give reasons.

               5.

               As regards the question whether the registered trade mark ‘ROCKBASS’ is directly descriptive of all the goods claimed, the Court misapplied Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. In so doing, it erroneously based its findings on the point of view of the average observer with certain preconceptions instead of the point of view of the average observer with no preconceptions and, in assessing the question, it took into account only insignificant characteristics and characteristics which are not immediately obvious to the relevant public.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 193, p. 26.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2002 in Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc v European Atomic Energy Community (Appeal — Claim for compensation — Non-contractual liability — Flooding — Blocked drain — Limitation period — No interruption of limitation period)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 233/11
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 July 2002
                                                                            in Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi
                                                                                Snc v European Atomic Energy Community ( 1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Appeal — Claim for compensation — Non-contractual
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    liability — Flooding — Blocked drain — Limitation period
                                                                                — No interruption of limitation period)
                           of 2 May 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 233/17)
in Case C-129/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bologna): Condominio Facchini Orsini v
                     Kone Ascensori SpA (1)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 233/16)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                            established in Ispra (Italy), (Lawyer: F. Venuti), appeal against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Communities (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2001 in Case
                                                                            T-124/99 Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v EAEC [2001]
                                                                            ECR II-53, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
                                                                            party to the proceedings being: European Atomic Energy
                                                                            Community, represented by the Commission of the European
In Case C-129/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                  Communities (Agents: H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) —
EC from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy) for a preliminary                  the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
Condominio Facchini Orsini and Kone Ascensori SpA — on                      V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
the interpretation of Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 July 2002, the
EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts                   operative part of which is as follows:
(OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            2.    Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc is ordered to pay the
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di               costs.
Bologna, by order of 20 February 2001, is inadmissible.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
( 1) OJ C 173, 16.6.2001.


title: Case C-510/03: Action brought on 4 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 21/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
The French Republic had confirmed its willingness to comply              Pleas in law and main arguments
with the decision of 13 November 2002. Nevertheless it failed
to submit evidence of the reimbursement by Bull, no later than
17 June 2003, of the cash advance of EUR 450 million,                    According to Article 7(6) and Article 19 of Directive 80/778/
including interest. The French Republic did not at any time              EEC, read in conjunction with Annex I to that directive, from
plead that it found it absolutely impossible to comply with the          15 July 1985 all water intended for human consumption in
decision. It took no action in relation to Bull with a view to           France must have a maximum nitrate concentration of less
obtaining reimbursement of the aid. Moreover, compliance                 than or equal to 50 mg/l.
with the decision did not present any particular difficulty,
since reimbursement had been agreed upon from the outset
between the Commission and the French Republic on the one
hand, and between the French Republic and Bull on the other              However, it appears from official publications that in 1988,
hand.                                                                    13 % of the total population of the region of Brittany were
                                                                         supplied with water which had, temporarily or permanently, a
                                                                         nitrate concentration of over 50 mg/l.
In addition the French Republic has allowed the period
prescribed to expire without bringing an action for annulment            On expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in its
of the decision, which must therefore be considered final                reasoned opinion, the French authorities admitted that that
against it.                                                              percentage, although it had decreased, was still 2,6 % in 2002.
(1) OJ 2003 L 209, p. 1.                                                 (1) OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11.
Action brought on 28 November 2003 by the Com-                           Action brought on 4 December 2003 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the French                   of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Republic                                                                lic of Germany
                         (Case C-505/03)                                                            (Case C-510/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/52)
                          (2004/C 21/51)
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-                ties on 4 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities, represented by J.C. Schieferer, with an address
represented by G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti, acting as             for service in Luxembourg.
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions
                                                                               impeding the placing on the market and putting into
1.   declare that, by failing to comply with the requirements                  service of appliances burning gaseous fuel which satisfy
     of the directive in relation to the nitrate content of                    the requirements of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of
     drinking water in Brittany, the French Republic has failed                29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(6) and Annex I of               Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous
     Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980, as                          fuels (1), in particular gas-fuelled water heaters, the Federal
     amended, relating to the quality of water intended for                    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     human consumption (1);                                                    under Article 4 of Directive 90/396/EEC;
2.   order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-135/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/54)
Various provisions adopted by several German Länder (con-
forming to the Federal Model Form of a Furnace Regulation of
24 February 1995) are, in the Commission’s view, incompat-                By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ible with Directive 90/396/EEC on gas-fuelled appliances.                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Those provisions relate to:                                               from the register of Case C-135/02: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
—      gas boilers with a thermal output of more than 50 kw,
       which may be installed only in separate rooms;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—      certain gas boilers which must be equipped with a
       safety device which prevents the concentration of carbon
       monoxide in the air from exceeding 30 ppm; and
—      gas boilers which must be equipped with a device which,
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-142/02 (1)
       in certain circumstances, closes off the gas supply.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/55)
This gives rise to an impediment to the placing on the
market in the Länder concerned of appliances satisfying the
requirements of the Directive because, in those Länder, matters           By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Court of
already governed by the Directive, such as the installation of            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
appliances only in rooms which do not constitute living space,            from the register of Case C-142/02: Commission of the
protection from the release of unburned gas, risk of explosion,           European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
etc., are subject to additional regulation by national provisions.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
The Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that, having
regard to the public safety of persons and the protection of life
and health of persons against general risks posed by fuel-
burning installations, the Member States are competent to
increase as appropriate the safety levels of such fuel-burning                   Removal from the register of Case C-228/02 (1)
installations on the basis of national building regulations. The
Commission rejects that line of argument, pointing out that,                                      (2004/C 21/56)
in accordance with the ‘New Approach’ concept, the Directive
contains a comprehensive set of rules on the matters covered
by it so that the adoption of additional national provisions              By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Second
governing that area no longer comes into question.                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case C-228/02:
(1) OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P
                        and C-169/01 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-229/02 (1)
                          (2004/C 21/53)                                                          (2004/C 21/57)
By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice            By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P and C-169/01 P: Federal               from the register of Case C-229/02 (Reference for a preliminary
Republic of Germany v RAG Aktiengesellschaft and UK Coal                  ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Tenderer: debis/AC and
v Commission of the European Communities.                                 Others v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversi-
                                                                          cherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001, OJ C 168 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-31/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2015 by Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2014 in Case T-394/13: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/14

         Appeal brought on 27 January 2015 by Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2014 in Case T-394/13: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-31/15 P)
   (2015/C 089/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2014 in Case T-394/13 Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China (1);

               —

               complete the analysis and annul Regulation (EU) No 412/2013; and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-394/13.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court's findings with respect to Appellant's first, third and fourth pleas before the General Court are vitiated by several errors of law as well as a distortion of the evidence submitted. The Appellant therefore submits that the contested judgment should be set aside. In addition, the Appellant submits that the facts underlying the first, second and third pleas are sufficiently established so as to enable the Court of Justice to decide on those pleas.
   As concerns the first plea, the Appellant advances two grounds of appeal. First, by imposing, in essence, on the Appellant the burden of proof that the Institutions made an error in their assessment in respect of each of the factors they deemed relevant, the General Court erred in law. As established in the previous jurisprudence of the General Court, it is sufficient for the Appellant to demonstrate either that (1) the Institutions erred in their assessment of the factors they deemed relevant or that (2) the application of other more relevant factors necessitated their exclusion. In that context, the determination that the Institutions made an error in their assessment in respect of 2 factors out of the 3 that the Institutions deemed relevant is sufficient to discharge the Appellant's burden of proof. Furthermore, in arriving at its findings the contested judgment distorted the evidence and the facts before the General Court.
   In respect of the third and the fourth pleas, the Appellant advances four grounds of appeal. First, the General Court misinterpreted the provisions of Article 3(2) and 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by finding that the Institutions are obliged to analyse the impact of the anticompetitive practices on the situation of the industry in the Union only after the existence of such anti-competitive practices is affirmatively established in a final decision of a relevant competition authority. Secondly, having rejected the Appellant's request to disclose the identities of the sampled Union producers, the General Court distorted the evidence on record and erred in law by concluding that it could examine the Institution's compliance with Articles 3(2) and 3(4) of the basic Regulation without the knowledge of the identities of the sampled Union producers. Thirdly, by imposing on the Appellant an obligation to adduce positive evidence of the impact of the anti-competitive practices on the sampled Union producers in a situation where the identities of the sampled producers are kept secret, the contested judgment misinterpreted provisions of Articles 3(2) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the Appellant. Fourthly, the contested judgment also misinterpreted the provisions of Article 3(2) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation by concluding that the relevant obligations can be discharged simply by relying on unelaborated assumptions instead of the performance of an actual analysis.

      (1)  OJ L 131, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.