title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 March 1996 in Case T-141/95: Kirsten Schelbeck v. European Parliament (Officials - Remuneration - National allowances - Discontinuance of application of the rule against overlapping - Scope of entitlement to reimbursement)

text:
No C 133/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-324/95 H                 from the register of Case C-324/95 : Commission of the
                        ( 96/C 133/44 )                            European Communities v. Ireland.
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 February 1996                                                   of 6 March 1996
in Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado v. Commission of                 in Case T-141/95 : Kirsten Schelbeck v. European
               the European Communities { l )                                                 Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials  — Annulment of decision of the Commission              (Officials — Remuneration — National allowances —
fixing the applicant's grade — Reinstatement following             Discontinuance of application of the rule against
            secondment at the official's request)                    overlapping — Scope of entitlement to reimbursement)
                        ( 961C 133/45 )                                                      ( 96/C 133/46 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T- 1 4 1/95 , Kirsten Schelbeck, an official of the
                                                                   European Parliament, residing at Luxembourg, represented
                                                                   by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Véronique
In Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado, an official of the         Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue
Trier ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and               Glesener, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter
Véronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for       and Jannis Pantalis ) — application for the annulment of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson           decision of the European Parliament of 1 December 1994,
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                adopted pursuant to a decision discontinuing the
Communities (Agents : Joseph Griesmar and Julian Currall )         application of Article 67 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations of
— application for the annulment of the Commission's                officials of the European Communities to certain
decision of 1 March 1994 fixing the applicant's grade, at the      allowances provided for by Danish legislation, whereby the
time of his reinstatement in the Commission's Translation          applicant was refused reimbursement of the amounts
Service following secondment at his request, as LA 5 , step 1 ,    deducted from her remuneration pursuant to that provision
with seniority from 1 April 1994 — the Court of First              for the period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993 —
Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of H. Kirschner,              the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,                A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28             Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
February 1996 , in which it:                                       has given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                   1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
1 , dismisses the application;                                         1 December 1 994 refusing to reimburse to the applicant
                                                                       the amounts deducted from her remuneration for the
                                                                       period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993
                                                                       pursuant to Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations of
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        officials of the European Communities;
                                                                   2 , orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay
(M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                          the costs of the applicant.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case C-12/14: Action brought on 10 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/11

         Action brought on 10 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-12/14)
   2014/C 159/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, D. Martin, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by reducing Maltese old-age pensions by the amount of a United Kingdom civil servant pension under, as the case may be, The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, The National Health Service Pension Scheme or The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 in respect of The Royal Air Force, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 46b of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 (1) of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Communities, as amended and consolidated by Regulation 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2) and Article 54 of Regulation (EC) no 883/2004 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulations 1408/71 and 883/2004 by deducting civil service pensions acquired under the legislation of another Member State from Maltese statutory old-age pension. The Commission is of the opinion that the United Kingdom civil service pension schemes are based on legislation and therefore fall within the scope of the said Regulations. The latter prohibit reducing a Maltese old-age pension by the amount of a United Kingdom public service pension. No social security convention concerning United Kingdom public service pensions has been concluded between the United Kingdom and Malta and no Annex to Regulation 1408/71 and 883/2004 contains an entry in respect of Malta, so that the conditions laid down by those Regulations to allow the continued applications of social security conventions are not fulfilled.
   As the United Kingdom public service pension schemes do fall within the scope of these Regulations, Articles 46b (1) of Regulation 1408/71 and 54 (1) of Regulation 883/2004 forbid the application of a rule of national law on the prevention of overlapping of benefits such as Section 56 of the Maltese Social Security Act.

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 2

      (2)  OJ L 28, p. 1

      (3)  OJ L 166, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-58/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof: Antje Köhler v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord (Sixth VAT Directive — Place of taxable transactions — Supplies of goods effected on board cruise ships — Transport effected within the Community — Exclusion of tax where a stop is made in a third territory — Scope of the exclusion)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-58/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof: Antje Köhler v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Place of taxable transactions - Supplies of goods effected on board cruise ships - Transport effected within the Community - Exclusion of tax where a stop is made in a third territory - Scope of the exclusion)
   (2005/C 271/13)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-58/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 23 October 2003, received at the Court on 11 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Antje Köhler and Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Stops made by a ship in the ports of a third country during which passengers may leave the ship, even for a short period, are 'stops in a third territory' within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30. 04. 2004.


title: Case C-545/10: Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Action brought on 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-545/10)
   2011/C 38/06
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), 6(2), 7(3), 11 and 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification;

               —

               and under Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC (2) of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC by laying down a maximum amount for charges for the use of infrastructure, which the infrastructure manager may not exceed. The infrastructure manager is required to carry out the imposition and levying of charges for the use of infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC. Member States are entitled only to lay down the framework of charges for the use of infrastructure.
   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to adopt measures providing infrastructure managers with incentives to reduce the costs of provision of infrastructure and the level of access charges.
   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to ensure that charges for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.
   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC by failing to introduce a performance scheme encouraging railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the railway network.
   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 30(5) of Directive 2001/14/EC by incorrectly transposing it into its domestic legal system.
   The Czech Republic has infringed Article 10(7) of Directive 91/440/EEC by failing to ensure the establishment of an entity in relation to the Czech Republic which could be regarded as an entity in accordance with Article 10(7) and fulfil the functions laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.


title: Case C-324/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Gábor Tóth v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9 — Meaning of taxable person — Right to deduct — Refusal — Principle of tax neutrality — Issuer of the invoice removed from the business register — Issuer of the invoice having failed to declare his employees to the tax authority — Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice vis-à-vis the tax authority)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/9

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Gábor Tóth v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
      (Case C-324/11) (1)

      (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Meaning of taxable person - Right to deduct - Refusal - Principle of tax neutrality - Issuer of the invoice removed from the business register - Issuer of the invoice having failed to declare his employees to the tax authority - Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice vis-à-vis the tax authority)
      (2012/C 331/14)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Legfelsőbb Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gábor Tóth

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsöbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct input tax in the practice of the national tax authorities — Tax payer’s obligation to satisfy himself both as to the tax status of the issuer of the invoice and as to the lawfulness of the legal relationship and tax situation of the issuer’s employees who carry out the invoiced work

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of tax neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the tax authority from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax due or paid for services provided to him solely on the ground that the business operator’s licence of the issuer of the invoice had been withdrawn before he provided the services in question or issued the invoice for them, where that invoice contains all the information required by Article 226 of that directive, in particular the information necessary to identify the person who drew up the invoice and the nature of the services supplied.

                  2.

                  Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the tax authority from refusing a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax due or paid for services provided to him on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services did not declare the workers he employed, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply.

                  3.

                  Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a taxable person did not verify either whether a legal relationship existed between the workers employed on a work site and the issuer of the invoice or whether the latter had declared those workers does not constitute an objective factor which demonstrates that the addressee of the invoice knew or ought to have known that he was participating in a transaction involving fraudulent evasion of value added tax, where the addressee was not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud had been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity. Accordingly, the right to deduct may not be refused on that ground where the material and formal conditions laid down by that directive for the exercise of that right are met.

                  4.

                  Where the tax authority provides specific evidence of the existence of fraud, Directive 2006/112 and the principle of tax neutrality do not preclude the national court from verifying, on the basis of an overall examination of the circumstances of the case, whether the issuer of the invoice carried out the transaction in question himself. However, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the right to deduct may be refused only where it is established by the tax authority, on the basis of objective evidence, that the addressee of the invoice knew or should have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with a fraud committed by the issuer or another operator supplying inputs in the chain of supply.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-775/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
   (Case T-775/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2016/C 232/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2060/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Philippe Lammens against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-120/97)

text:
No C 228/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
(Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the                  Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Philippe Lammens
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                against the Commission of the European Communities
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.                                       ( Case T-120/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/36 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                     An action against the Commission of the European
    consideration to the possible application of                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
                                                                       by Philippe Lammens, residing at Heme ( Belgium ),
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                     address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
    rejecting the applicant's complaint,                               ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      consideration to the possible application of
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                           Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Gerhard Keinhorst                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 19/97 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                           ( 97/C 228/35 )                             Case T-16/97 ( l ).
                (Language of the case: French)                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Gerhard Keinhorst, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Angela Pollitzer
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                                          (Case T-129/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/37)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    An action against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                        by Angela Pollitzer, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     consideration to the possible application of
 Case T-l 6/9 7 ( ] ).                                                      Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-375/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/58/EC — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Protection of privacy — Protection of natural persons — Failure to tranpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-375/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to tranpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 143/19)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-375/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-359/04: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission (State aid — Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom — Exemption for Northern Ireland — Commission decision not to raise objections — Serious difficulties — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission
      (Case T-359/04) (1)

      (State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Exemption for Northern Ireland - Commission decision not to raise objections - Serious difficulties - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection)
      (2010/C 288/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom), Healy Bros. Ltd (Middleton, Ireland) and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Flett and T. Scharf, Agents)

         Intervening party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented initially by M. Bethell and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, and lastly by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Hall and G. Facenna, Barristers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the modified exemption for Northern Ireland in the context of the scheme of levies on aggregates in the United Kingdom

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the change in the exemption, in Northern Ireland, from the levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom;

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association, Healy Bros. Ltd and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd;

                  3.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-558/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2014  — Mimoun Khachab v Delegación de Gobierno en Álava

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Mimoun Khachab v Delegación de Gobierno en Álava
   (Case C-558/14)
   (2015/C 046/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mimoun Khachab

      Defendant: Delegación de Gobierno en Álava

      Question referred

   Must Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an application for family reunification to be refused on the grounds that the sponsor does not have stable and regular resources sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, according to a prospective assessment by the national authorities of the likelihood of the economic resources in question being retained in the year following the date of submission of the application, taking into account the pattern of those resources in the six months preceding that date?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case C-176/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2009/12/EC — Airport charges — Scope — Airports whose annual traffic is over 5 million passenger movements per year and those with the highest passenger movements in each Member State — Validity — Principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-176/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2009/12/EC - Airport charges - Scope - Airports whose annual traffic is over 5 million passenger movements per year and those with the highest passenger movements in each Member State - Validity - Principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity)
   2011/C 204/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of the end of Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11) — Application of the directive to airports with the highest passenger movement in each Member State — Luxembourg-Findel airport — Breach of the principles of equal treatment, subsidiarity and proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Slovak Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-181/08: Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-181/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/71)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-402/16 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-312/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — GLAXO GROUP (MITOCHRON)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/3

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-312/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — GLAXO GROUP (MITOCHRON)
   (Case C-402/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-79/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose a directive)

text:
23.11.96            I EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 354/9
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       26 September 1996 in which it:
                     of 26 September 1996
in Case C-79/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose a                     Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989
                              directive)                                    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
                           ( 96/C 354/ 16 )                                 for the workplace, Council Directive 89/6S5/EEC of
                                                                            30 November 1 989 concerning the minimum safety and
                                                                            health requirements for the use of work equipment by
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                              workers at work, Council Directive 89/65 6/EEC of
                                                                            30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety
                                                                            requirements for the use by workers of personal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                protective equipment at the workplace, Council
         published in the European Court Reports)                           Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1 990 on the minimum
                                                                            health and safety requirements for the manual handling
In Case C-79/95 : Commission of the European                                of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury
Communities ( Agent: Blanca Rodriguez Galindo ) v.                          to workers, Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez                   1 990 on the minimum safety and health requirements
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for a declaration that,               for work with display screen equipment and Council
by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
provisions necessary to comply with :                                       protection of workers from the risks related to
                                                                            exposure to carcinogens at work, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 ( 1 ) of
— Council Directive 89/391 /EEC of 12 June 1989 on the                      Directives 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC and 89/656/EEC,
    introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                   Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 90/269/EEC, Article 11 ( 1 ) of
    the health and safety of workers at work ( OJ No L 183 ,                Directive 90/270/EEC and Article 19 ( 1 ) of Directive
    1989 , p. 1 );                                                          90/394/EEC;
— Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989
                                                                       2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
    for the workplace ( OJ No L 393 , 1989 , p. 1 );
                                                                       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
— Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
    concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
    for the use of work equipment by workers at work ( OJ
    No L 393 , 1989 , p. 13 );
— Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on
    the minimum health and safety requirements for the use                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    by workers of personal protective equipment at the                                          ( Sixth Chamber )
    workplace ( OJ No L 393 , 1989 , p. 18 );
                                                                                of 26 September 1996
— Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                   in Case C-l 17/95 : Commission of the European
    minimum health and safety requirements for the manual                            Communities v. Italian Republic (')
    handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
    back injury to workers ( OJ No L 156 , 1990, p. 9 );               Directive 92/35/FEC — Directive 92/40/EEC — Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
— Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                                               ( 96/C 354/ 17 )
    minimum safety and health requirements for work with
    display screen equipment ( OJ No L 156 , 1990 , p. 14 );                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    and
 — Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    protection of workers from the risks related to exposure                     published in the European Court Reports)
    to carcinogens at work ( OJ No L 196 , 1990 , p. 1 ),
                                                                       In Case C-l 17/95 : Commission of the European
 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations              Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
 under those Directives, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   ( Agent: Umberto Leanza , assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) —
 composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
 G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur )         within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and


title: Case C-201/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis
   (Case C-201/15)
   (2015/C 221/05)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anonimi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis)

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ergasias, Kinonikis Asfalisis kai Kinonikis Allilengiis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national provision, such as Article 5(3) of Law No 1387/1983, which lays down as a condition in order for collective redundancies to be effected in a specific undertaking that the administrative authorities must authorise the redundancies in question on the basis of criteria as to (a) the conditions in the labour market, (b) the situation of the undertaking and (c) the interests of the national economy compatible with Directive 98/59/EC (1) in particular and, more generally, Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is a national provision with the aforementioned content compatible with Directive 98/59/EC in particular and, more generally, Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU if there are serious social reasons, such as an acute economic crisis and very high unemployment?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Customs agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
C 259/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
Council of the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi, G. Hout-               1.   Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98 are joined for the purposes of the
tuin and G.-L. Ramos Ruano) and Commission of the European                      further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants,                2.   The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
consisting of the costs of restructuring or liquidating their
businesses, which were incurred as a result of the establish-              3.   The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
ment, with effect from 1 January 1993, of the internal market                   the Council.
in accordance with the Single European Act, and of the
consequent discontinuance of the activities which they had                 4.   The Commission is to bear its own costs.
hitherto carried on as customs agents in the field of intra-
Community trade — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi                (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
15 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
2.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
      the Council.
3.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                                            of 14 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacita-
                                                                               dos v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Refusal to initiate infringement proceedings — Action for
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 annulment — Inadmissibility)
                         of 26 June 2000                                                             (2000/C 259/40)
in Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacitados,
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-                    established in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez,
     toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                      of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the Chambers of Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard
                         (2000/C 259/39)                                   de la Pétrusse, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes Real) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        19 October 1999 not to institute proceedings against the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain for a declaration of infringement of
In Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl, established                Community law — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Brescia (Italy), and 21 others, and Carlo Chiappe, residing at          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
Leghorn (Italy), and 11 others, represented by G. Leone, of the            N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Milan Bar, and M. Clough, solicitor advocate, with an address              14 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
398 Route d’Esch, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
M.C. Giorgi, G. Houttuin and P. Cossu) and Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications               2.   There is no need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to
for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the                       intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and the United
applicants as a result of the establishment, with effect from                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of               3.   The applicant is to pay the costs.
the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 26 June 2000, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case F-26/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Action brought on 23 February 2012 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-26/12)
   2012/C 184/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the ECB decision rejecting the applicant’s requests to document access and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the ECB decisions rejecting the requests to document access of the applicant, i.e. the decision dated 21 June 2011 by which the application of the applicant for access to documents has been rejected, the decision of the Director General dated 12 August 2011 and the decision of the President of the European Central Bank dated 12 December 2011;

               —

               order the ECB to pay a compensation, evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000, for the moral prejudice suffered;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs.


title: Case F-44/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Tsarnavas v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Tsarnavas v Commission
   (Case F-44/08) (1)

   (2008/C 313/111)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 28.


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 October 2010 in Case E-3/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate)

text:
               12.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/10

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 18 October 2010
   in Case E-3/10
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate)
   2011/C 141/10
   In Case E-3/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 18 October 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-182/06: Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/35

         Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-182/06)
   (2006/C 212/63)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant informed the Commission, in accordance with Article 95(5) EC, of its intention to establish national rules for limiting emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles, in derogation from the provisions of Directive 98/69/EC (1). Under those notified rules, a limit value of 5 milligrams per kilometre for the emission of fine particulate matter was to be set with effect from 1 January 2007 for new diesel-powered passenger cars and diesel-powered commercial vehicles. The present limit value in Directive 98/69 is 25 milligrams per kilometre. In view of specific problems in the Netherlands concerning air quality, the Netherlands Government considers that it is necessary to introduce a more stringent rule. The Commission rejected the proposed national rule in the contested Decision 2006/372/EC (2).
   In support of its application, the applicant first claims infringement by the Commission of the appraisal criteria of Article 95(5) EC by reason of its view that the Netherlands had not indicated that there was a specific problem in regard to air quality and, more particularly, with the obligations under Directive 99/30 (3).
   Second, the applicant submits that there has been an infringement of the duty of care and the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC by virtue of the Commission's failure to take into account, without detailed reasons, more recent and relevant data which the Netherlands Government provided in good time prior to the contested decision.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the EC Treaty by failing, in its appraisal of alternative measures pursuant to Article 95(6) EC, to proceed on the basis of the specifically pursued objective of the national provision in respect of which approval was sought.
   The applicant accordingly contends that there has been a failure to comply with the obligation under Article 253 EC to state reasons in the appraisal of the conditions under Article 95(6) EC.
   The applicant concludes by alleging a breach of Article 95(5) and (6) EC and the requirement under Article 253 EC to state reasons by virtue of the fact that the Commission treated the international context of the planned measure as being relevant in its appraisal of the request made by the Netherlands Government.

      (1)  Directive 98/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC (OJ 1998 L 350, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles [notification made under no C(2000) 1791] (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16).

      (3)  Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41).


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 July 1996 in Case T-85/96 R: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

text:
No C 247/ 16          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              European Communities in Luxembourg be maintained for
                        of 11 July 1996                               the time being — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      made an order on 5 July 1 996 , the operative part of which is
in Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira v. Council of the          as follows :
                      European Union (')
(Council decisions appointing the chairmen and members of             1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
the Boards ofAppeal ofthe Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) — Action for                2.  the costs are reserved.
    annulment — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                          ( 96/C 247/34 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
In Case T-30/96 : Jose Gomes de Sa Pereira , residing at Sao                   OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Joao de Ver, Santa Maria da Feira ( Portugal ), represented by                               of 12 July 1996
Augusto Cardoso, of the Oporto Bar, 1 6 Rua Jornal Correio
da Feira , 1° Dt°, Santa Maria da Feira , v. Council of the           in Case T-93/96 R: Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
European Union ( Agents : Therese Blanchet and Isabel                            the Development of Vocational Training
Lopes Cardoso ) — application , first, for annulment of the                                    ( 96/C 247/36 )
decisions of the Council of 23 October 1 995 appointing the
chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office                           (Language of the case: German)
for Harmonization in the Internal Market ( trade marks and
designs ) ( OJ No C 314 , pp . 3 , 4 and 5 ) and, second, for an      In Case T-93/96 R : Catherine Presle , an official of the
order requiring the Council to pay compensation for the               European Centre for the Development of Vocational
damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of             Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Third                  Rechtsanwalt,     1 3 Place des Barricades, Brussels, v.
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, President, and B.                 European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made         Training,      represented     by Bertrand Wagenbaur,
an order on 11 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application , first, for
follows :
                                                                      suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating
                                                                      to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,
1 . the application for free legal assistance is dismissed;           for an order that her posting in the Berlin branch of the
                                                                      European Parliament's Information Office for Germany be
2 . the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;               maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
                                                                      of First Instance made an order on 12 July 19 96 , the
3 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                  operative part of which is as follows:
(•) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.  the costs are reserved.
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 5 July 1996                                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-85 /96 R: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
                                                                                of 25 July 1996
        for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                      in Case T-98/96 R: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                          ( 96/ C 247/35 )
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                       (Officials — Decision providing for reassignment to a post
                (Language of the case: German)                                         — Suspension of operation)
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/37 )
In Case T-85/96 R : Francis Alan Clarke , an official of the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training, residing at Eischen ( Luxembourg ), represented by                          (Language of the case: French)
Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, 13 Place des Barricades,
Brussels, v. European Centre for the Development of                   In Case T-98/96 R : Mario Costacurta , an official of the
Vocational Training, represented by Bertrand Wagenbaur,               Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg — application, first, for                       Kinshasa , represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
suspension of operation of the defendant's decision relating          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
to the transfer of the applicant to Thessaloniki and , second ,       Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers , v. Commission of the
for an order that his posting in the Statistical Office of the        European Communities ( Agents: G. Valsesia and A. M.


title: Case T-201/00: Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and 115 others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/19
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
115 others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     annul the express decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities of 19 July 2000 refusing to apply
                          (Case T-201/00)                                        Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations in relation
                                                                                to him;
                          (2000/C 285/34)                                  —     rule that the applicant is to be re-assigned to a third
                                                                                country by no later than 1 September 2000, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        pay all the costs of the proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and
115 others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                           The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the
                                                                           decision rejecting the request submitted by him on 6 June
—     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the                 2000, by which he applied to be assigned to a third country
      drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips for the months               pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of
      from September to December 1999;                                     officials. That request was rejected on the ground that the
                                                                           applicant did not fall within the category of staff covered by
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the provision in question.
                                                                           In support of his application, he maintains that the decision in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           issue:
The applicants, who are seconded to the Office for Veterinary              —     infringes Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff
and Plant-Health Inspection and Control in Dublin, are con-                      Regulations;
testing their pay slips for the months from September to
December 1999, maintaining that these were drawn up on the                 —     infringes Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
basis of the weighting for Ireland, which has been fixed                         principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and
without taking account of the cost of living in Dublin. They                     the principle of the hierarchy of norms;
claim that, by applying that illegal weighting for the purposes
of calculating their remuneration, the Commission has                      —     infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
infringed Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of                        expectations;
officials, as well as the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
career prospects and freedom of movement for workers.                      —     is vitiated by misuse of powers and abuse of process; and
                                                                           —     infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against
                          (Case T-202/00)                                                 the Council of the European Union
                          (2000/C 285/35)                                                           (Case T-205/00)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2000/C 285/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacur-
ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, of the              An action against the Council of the European Union was
Luxembourg Bar.                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-451/10 P: Order of the Court of 9 June 2011 — Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v European Commission, Métropole télévision (M6), Canal +, French Republic, France Télévisions (Appeal — State aid — Article 86(2) EC — Public service broadcasting — Decision not to raise objections — Proof — Economic efficiency of the undertaking)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Order of the Court of 9 June 2011 — Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v European Commission, Métropole télévision (M6), Canal +, French Republic, France Télévisions
   (Case C-451/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Article 86(2) EC - Public service broadcasting - Decision not to raise objections - Proof - Economic efficiency of the undertaking)
   2011/C 311/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, Agents), Métropole télévision (M6), Canal + (represented by: E. Guillaume, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, Agents), France Télévisions (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08 TF1 and M6 v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA — Infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence — Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU — Concept of ‘service of general economic interest’ — No serious difficulties

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) is ordered to pay the costs;

               3.

               Canal + and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-397/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission (Interim measures — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Regulation fixing the refunds at zero — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/56

         Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
   (Case T-397/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Regulation fixing the refunds at zero - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 344/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and F. Le Roquais, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for stay of execution of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 November 1996 in Case T-144/95: Christos Michaël v. Commission of the European Communities (Promotion - Practical guide to the promotions procedure - Category A officials - List of officials most deserving of promotion - List of promoted officials - Decision adversely affecting an official)

text:
No C 388/8             EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
                    of 21 November 1996
in Case T- 144/95 : Christos Michael v. Commission of the              — annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
                 European Communities 0 )                                   promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the 1995
                                                                            promotion procedure,
(Promotion — Practical guide to the promotions
procedure — Category A officials — List of officials most
deserving of promotion — List of promoted officials —                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
          Decision adversely affecting an official)                         the Advisory Committee on grade B promotions not to
                                                                            include the applicant in the list of officials proposed
                            ( 96/C 388/15 )                                 for promotion to grade B 1 in the 1995 promotion
                                                                            procedure,
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-144/95 : Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and Beatrice                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian                     The applicant, an official in the service of the Council,
Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of                  was promoted to grade B 2 on 1 June 1987. She states,
the European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves                     first, that she has been suffering for over two years from
Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                       health problems which have on several occasions
annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint              necessitated her hospitalization for very short periods .
lodged by the applicant on 7 December 1994 on the basis
of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of           The list of officials , proposed by the Advisory Committee
the European Communities against a decision of the                     for promotion to grade B 1 , dated 7 December 1995 , does
Commission drawing up the list of officials promoted to                not contain the name of the applicant. She considers that
Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion procedure — the Court                  the representatives of the administration opposed her
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.                   promotion by reason of her absence on sick leave . She
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.              pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a             breach of the opinion of the Joint Committee and
judgment on 21 November 1996 , the operative part of                   contravention of Staff Communication No P 76/93 of
which is as follows :
                                                                       16 July 1993 .
1 . The Commission 's decision not to promote the
    applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion                       By her second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of
    procedure is annulled.                                             the obligation imposed by Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations to provide a statement of reasons . The
                                                                       applicant maintains that the Council refused to
2 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                        communicate to her the criteria             used to assess the
                                                                       comparative merits of officials eligible for promotion to
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                      grade B 2 . The contested decisions are also vitiated by a
                                                                       total absence of any statement of reasons, or at least by a
                                                                       blatantly inadequate statement of reasons, and must
                                                                       consequently be annulled .
Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis
        against the Council of the European Union
                          ( Case T-168/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 16                             Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Jean-Pierre
                                                                       Pierard against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( Case T- 169/96 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                           ( 96/C 388/ 17
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,                                  (Language of the case: French)
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices               An action against the Commission of European
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-357/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchair) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an armchair — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchair)
   (Case T-357/12) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2014/C 78/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2012 (Case R 969/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture Lda to pay its own costs and also the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case C-130/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/16

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-130/14)
   2014/C 159/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining rules that deny non-resident taxpayers whose incomes are obtained exclusively or almost exclusively in Belgium (Walloon Region) the benefit of a tax reduction on personal income tax granted to resident taxpayers living in the Walloon Region under the Decree of 3 April 2009 establishing the Caisse d’Investissement de Wallonie and establishing a reduction in personal income tax in the case of subscription of shares or bonds of the Caisse, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area,

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By a Decree of the Walloon Region of 3 April 2009, a tax reduction for the subscription of shares or bonds issued by the Caisse d’Investissement de Wallonie is granted only to residents of the Walloon Region. The Commission considers that such a provision constitutes discrimination against non-resident taxpayers whose incomes are obtained exclusively or almost exclusively in Belgium. Consequently, it is incompatible with Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as interpreted by the Court in Schumacker (1) and Wielockx. (2)

      (1)  Schumacker, C-279/93, EU:C:1995:31.

      (2)  Wielockx, C-80/94, EU:C:1995:271.


title: Case T-199/10: Action brought on 27 April 2010 — DRV v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/48

         Action brought on 27 April 2010 — DRV v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich)
   (Case T-199/10)
   2010/C 179/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV (DRV) (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: I. Rinke, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Austria Leasing GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 253/2009-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Austria Leasing GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich’, in respect of services in Classes 35, 36 and 37.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DRV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia, a figurative mark registered in Germany which contains the word element ‘Raiffeisen’, in respect of services in Classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-143/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Ben Ri Electrónica v OHMI — Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LT LIGHT-THECNO — Earlier Community figurative mark LT — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Ben Ri Electrónica v OHMI — Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO)
   (Case T-143/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LT LIGHT-THECNO - Earlier Community figurative mark LT - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 370/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ben Ri Electrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A.I. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sacopa, SAU (Sant Jaume de Llierca, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ben Ri Electrónica, SA and Sacopa, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 1625/2008-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ben-Ri Electrónica, SA.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case T-340/15: Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/46

         Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)
   (Case T-340/15)
   (2015/C 279/58)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 411 112

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2247/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and before the Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.