title: Case C-107/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD v Direktor ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ NAP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directives 77/388/EEC and 2006/112/EC — Refund — Time-limit — Interest — Set-off — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD v Direktor ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ NAP
   (Case C-107/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directives 77/388/EEC and 2006/112/EC - Refund - Time-limit - Interest - Set-off - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Protection of legitimate expectations)
   2011/C 194/06
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD

      Defendant: Direktor „Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto“ NAP

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 18(4) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145) and Article 183, first paragraph, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Mandatory period within which excess VAT is to be refunded, at the expiry of which the interest due to the taxable person is calculated — Amendment to national legislation during such a calculation providing that, in the event of a tax investigation, that calculation will be made as of the date of issue of the tax notice concluding the tax investigation — Reasonable period — Whether it is possible to refund excess VAT by setting off the sum to be refunded against tax liabilities of the taxable person — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2006/138/EC of 19 December 2006, in conjunction with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides, with retrospective effect, for the extension of the period within which excess value added tax is to be refunded, in so far as that legislation deprives the taxable person of the right enjoyed before the entry into force of the legislation to obtain default interest on the sum to be refunded.

               2.

               Article 183 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the normal period for refunding excess valued added tax, at the expiry of which default interest is payable on the sum to be refunded, is extended where a tax investigation is instigated, the effect of the extension being that such interest is payable only from the date on which the investigation is completed, the excess having already been carried forward during the three tax periods following that in which it arose. On the other hand, the fact that the normal period is 45 days is not contrary to that provision.

               3.

               Article 183 of the Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2006/138, is to be interpreted as not precluding the refund of excess valued added tax by way of set-off.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-305/15: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/19

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen
   (Case C-305/15) (1)

   (2016/C 326/31)
   Language of the case: Danish
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-446/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Centrixx — Earlier national word mark sensixx — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)
   (Case T-446/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Centrixx - Earlier national word mark sensixx - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 256/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 572/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH and Royal Appliance International GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Royal Appliance International GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2003 in Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL v Council of the European Union (Decision 2002/973/EC — Dock dues — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
6.9.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 213/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Agents: J. Monteiro and M. Balta) — application for annulment
                                                                           of Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December 2002
                          of 2 June 2003                                   amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989 con-
                                                                           cerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments (OJ
                                                                           2002 L 337, p. 83) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-276/02: Forum 187 asbl v Commission of the                       Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and H. Legal
                   European Communities ( 1)                               and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
                                                                           order on 25 June 2003, in which it:
(State aid — Tax regime — Existing aid — Decision to
initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC —                  1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
            Legal effects — None — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           2.    Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the applications
                         (2003/C 213/68)                                         for leave to intervene made by the Republic of Portugal, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain, the Société Immobilière et de Service Boétie
                                                                                and others, and by the Commission;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Council;
In Case T-276/02, Forum 187 ASBL, established in Brussels
                                                                           4.    Orders the parties which have applied for leave to intervene to
(Belgium), represented by A. Sutton and J. Killick, Barristers, v
                                                                                bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
and V. Di Bucci): Application for annulment of the Com-
mission decision of 27 February 2002 to initiate the procedure             (1 ) OJ C 55 of 8 March 2003.
laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of Belgian provisions
concerning coordination centres, the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
on 2 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                                              INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                         of 31 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                               in Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Application for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/70)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 25 June 2003
                                                                           In Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace, having its registered
in Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL v Council of the
                                                                           office in Strasbourg (France), represented by F. Ruhlmann,
                       European Union ( 1)
                                                                           lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Giolito and G. Wilms) — application for suspension
(Decision 2002/973/EC — Dock dues — Action for annul-                      of the operation of the decision of the Commission of
                     ment — Inadmissibility)                               20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation Alsace to repay to
                                                                           it EUR 18 000 following its breach of subsidy agreement PSS*/
                         (2003/C 213/69)                                   0534 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                                                                           order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
In Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL, established at Saint-                2.    Costs are reserved.
François (France), and 23 other applicants, represented by
J.S. Dagnon, avocat, against Council of the European Union


title: Case T-54/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark FICKEN LIQUORS — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Efag Trade Mark Company v OHIM (FICKEN LIQUORS)
   (Case T-54/13) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark FICKEN LIQUORS - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 377/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Schemmerhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wekwerth, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2012 (Case R 2544/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark FICKEN LIQUORS as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Order Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-435/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation de Belgique by decision of that court of 6 October 2004 in the case of Sébastien Victor Leroy against Ministère public

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation de Belgique by decision of that court of 6 October 2004 in the case of Sébastien Victor Leroy against Ministère public
   (Case C-435/04)
   (2004/C 300/67)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour de cassation de Belgique (Belgium Court of Cassation) of 6 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 14 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sébastien Victor Leroy against Ministère public on the following question:
   Do Articles 49 to 55 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Community preclude a national law of a Member State which prohibits a person who resides and works in that State from using in that State a vehicle which belongs to a leasing company established in another Member State when that vehicle has not been registered in the former State, even if it has been in the latter?


title: Case T-361/16: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/60

         Order of the General Court of 21 November 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)
   (Case T-361/16) (1)

   (2017/C 022/82)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case F-4/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — AV v Commission (Civil service — Temporary agent — Recruitment — Medical cover deferment — Retroactive application of medical cover deferment — Opinion of invalidity committee)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 July 2012 — AV v Commission
   (Case F-4/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary agent - Recruitment - Medical cover deferment - Retroactive application of medical cover deferment - Opinion of invalidity committee)
   2012/C 287/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AV (Cadrezzate, Italy) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of decisions to defer medical cover in respect of the applicant as provided for by Article 32 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union and not to grant him entitlement to the invalidity allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of 12 April 2010 whereby the European Commission deferred medical cover in respect of AV as provided for by Article 32 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union;

               2.

               annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 April 2010 in so far as it denied AV entitlement to the invalidity allowance;

               3.

               orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AV.

      (1)  OJ C 179 18.6.2011, p. 21.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 15 October 1998 in the case of Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG against Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen (Case C-454/98)

text:
20.2.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 48/17
7. V i o l a t i o n o f t h e    legal   concept      of   the       3. What conditions must be satisfied for the issuer of an
     misuse of powers                                                     invoice to be acting in good faith?
     The Apellant further submits that the Court of First
     Instance made an error of law in applying the concept
     of misuse of powers in that:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia, by order of 24 November 1998,
     Ð it refused to appraise globally all the relevant and                  in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH
         consistent factors raised by the applicant and even
         omitted to examine an important number thereof;                                     (Case C-456/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/27)
     Ð it illegally defined the type of facts which may
         constitute the objective, relevant and consistent            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         factors of a misuse of powers.                               European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia (District Magistrate's Court,
                                                                      Brescia) of 24 November 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
                                                                      Court Registry on 14 December 1998, for a preliminary
(3) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 (First             ruling in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH on
    Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty)         the following questions:
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87).
(4) Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the         1. What is the interpretation of Articles 52, 53, 54, 55,
    hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation          56, 57 and 58 of the EC Treaty; in particular, do
    No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 47).
                                                                          Articles 2 and 9 of Italian Law No 205 of 1985, under
                                                                          which entry in a register is compulsory for any person
                                                                          acting as an agent and an agency contract concluded
                                                                          by a person not entered on that register is void,
                                                                          constitute a restriction on the freedom of
                                                                          establishment?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof             2. Do the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of
by order of that court of 15 October 1998 in the case of                  establishment contained in Articles 52 to 58 preclude
Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG against Finanzamt                          national legislation which makes the validity of an
 Borken and Manfred Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen                   agency contract subject to entry of the commercial
                         (Case C-454/98)                                  agent in an appropriate register?
                          (1999/C 48/26)                              3. Do the provisions on freedom to provide services
                                                                          contained in Articles 59 to 66 preclude national
                                                                          legislation which makes the validity of an agency
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    contract subject to the requirement of entry of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      commercial agent in an appropriate register?
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 October 1998 received at
the Court Registry on 11 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the cases of Schmeink & Cofreth AG
& Co. KG against Finanzamt Borken and Manfred
Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen on the following
questions:                                                            Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des
                                                                      Poudres SpheÂriques against the judgment delivered on
                                                                      15 October 1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended
1. Does Community law require that provision be made                  Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
     to allow rectification of an improperly invoiced tax as          European Communities in Case T-2/95 between Industrie
     part of the procedure for determining the tax or is it           des Poudres SpheÂriques and the Council of the European
     sufficient for the Member States to permit rectification         Union, supported by the Commission of the European
     only in a later procedure for determining whether                Communities, PeÂchiney EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the
     payment of the tax is equitable (on objective'                  Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de
     grounds)?                                                                                l'EÂlectrochimie
                                                                                (Case C-458/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/28)
2. Is it an imperative prerequisite for rectifying an
     improperly invoiced tax that the issuer of the invoice
     should demonstrate good faith or are there other                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 October
     circumstances in which an invoice may be rectified               1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
     (and, if so, what are those circumstances)?                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in


title: Case T-565/14: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions — Refusal of internal review — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Lateness — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/30

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-565/14) (1)

   ((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 381/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Poland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014) 1915757) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 17 February 2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.

               3.

               European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               EEB, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-699/14: Action brought on 27 September 2014 — Topps Europe v Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/29

         Action brought on 27 September 2014 — Topps Europe v Commission
   (Case T-699/14)
   (2014/C 448/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Topps Europe Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal and A. Penny, Solicitors and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision in of 15 July 2014 in Case AT.39899 — Licensing of intellectual property rights for football collectibles, which rejected the applicant's complaint that a number of national football governing bodies and players' associations together with Panini S.p.A., Union des Associations Européennes de Football, Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Fédération Française de Football, Associazione Italiana Calciatori, Real Federación Española de Fútbol, and Deutscher Fußball-Bund had breached Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant's cost of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has seriously infringed the applicant's procedural rights, and as such, the defendant has committed an error of law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant's Decision is based on incorrect facts and is subject to a manifest error of appraisal, and as such, the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.


title: Case C-419/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (2ème Chambre Civile) by order of that court of 21 September 2004 in the case of Conseil Général de la Vienne against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (2ème Chambre Civile) by order of that court of 21 September 2004 in the case of Conseil Général de la Vienne against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
   (Case C-419/04)
   (2004/C 284/23)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (2ème Chambre Civile) (Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France – 2nd Civil Chamber) of 21 September 2004 received at the Court Registry on 30 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil Général de la Vienne against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:
   ‘Is Article 871 of the Community Customs Code relating to the recovery of the amount of the customs debt to be interpreted as establishing an essential and obligatory procedure, non-compliance with which will result in nullity, if the national customs authorities have expressed doubts, at any time during the recovery procedure concerning a person liable for payment acting in good faith, as regards the precise scope of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of duties resulting from a customs debt which has been eluded because it was not entered in the accounts on the date when that debt should have given rise to recovery (debt relating to the possible incorporation into the purchase price of audiovisual equipment supplied by a Canadian supplier of a flat-rate charge compulsorily included in the entry price to the amusement park in which the equipment is operated, whether or not the visitor who paid the charge made use of the equipment)?’


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn v Council of the European Union and C.H. Boehringer Sohn v Commission of the European Communities (Directive prohibiting the use of beta-agonists in stockfarming — Regulation limiting the validity of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products to certain therapeutic purposes — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Principle of proportionality)

text:
19.2.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/27
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 13 December 1999                                                       of 1 December 1999
in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96: Service                   in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96: Boehringer Ingel-
pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA) v Commission                      heim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn v
              of the European Communities (1)                             Council of the European Union and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Examin-
ation of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to              (Directive prohibiting the use of beta-agonists in stockfarm-
          act, for annulment and for compensation)                        ing — Regulation limiting the validity of maximum residue
                                                                          limits of veterinary medicinal products to certain therapeutic
                                                                          purposes — Action for annulment — Admissibility —
                         (2000/C 47/45)                                                    Principle of proportionality)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/46)
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96: Service                                     (Language of the case: English)
pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA), established at Istres
(France), represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     In Joined Cases T-125/96: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon, v                  GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim am
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially,                Rhein, Germany, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Denis
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier, and subsequently Mr                    Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — applications for annulment of the              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Commission’s decision of 5 June 1996 rejecting a complaint by             Mathias Hardt, supported by Fédération Européenne de la
the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now                   Santé Animale (Fedesa), an association incorporated under
Article 81 EC), for annulment of an alleged implicit decision             Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Alexandre
of the Commission refusing to adopt provisional measures                  Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
pursuant to that complaint, and for compensation for loss and             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
damage — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                     Mathias Hardt, and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and                 and Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll and David Lloyd
M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Jones) v Council of the European Union (Agents: Moyra
has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in which it:                    Sims-Robertson and Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by Stich-
                                                                          ting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), a foundation
                                                                          incorporated under Netherlands law, established in The Hague,
1. Dismisses the actions.                                                 represented by Gerard van der Wal, advocate before the Hoge
                                                                          Raad der Nederlanden, and Laura Paret, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs relating to Cases T-189/95       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue and Commission of the European
     and T-123/96.                                                        Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) — application for the
                                                                          partial annulment of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April
                                                                          1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-39/96.            of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action
                                                                          and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
                                                                          88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3) together
                                                                          with a claim for compensation, and T-152/96: Boehringer
(1) OJ C 333 of 9.12.1995, OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996 and OJ C 318 of          Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn, sup-
    26.10.1996.                                                           ported by Fedesa v Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by SKV and Council of the European Union
                                                                          — Application for the partial annulment of Commission
                                                                          Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex
                                                                          III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a
                                                                          Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/28                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Klaus
animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) — the Court of                          Wiedner and Stephen Kinsella), supported by Republic of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,                   Finland (Agents: Tuula Pynnä and David Vaughan QC) and
President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pas-                French Republic (Agents: Jean-François Dobelle, Frédérik Milli-
tor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                on and Kareen Rispal-Bellanger) — application for annulment
judgment on 1 December 1999, the operative part of which is                 of Commission Decision 97/277/EC of 20 November 1996
as follows:                                                                 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
                                                                            market (Case No IV/M.784 — Kesko/Tuko) (OJ 1997 L 110,
1. Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96 are joined for the purposes of               p. 53) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
     this judgment.                                                         Extended Composition), composed of: A. Potocki, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996                     A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90              on 15 December 1999, in which it:
     laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of
     maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in             1. Dismisses the action;
     foodstuffs of animal origin is annulled, in so far as it restricts the
     validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol to certain   2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of
     specified therapeutic indications for bovines and equines.                  the Commission;
3. For the rest, the applications are dismissed.                            3. Orders the Republic of Finland and the French Republic to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
4. In Case T-125/96, the applicants and Fédération Européenne de
     la Santé Animale (Fedesa), as regards its intervention, are ordered
     to bear their own costs and those of the Council. The United           (1) OJ No C 131 of 26.4.97.
     Kingdom, the Commission and Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie
     Vleeskalverensector (SKV) are ordered to bear their own costs.
5. In Case T-152/96, the Commission is ordered to bear its own
     costs and to pay one-half of the costs of the applicants and
     Fedesa, the other half to be borne by them. The Council and SKV
     are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996 and C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA and
                                                                                Republica SA v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping duties — Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 non-alloy steel — Europe agreement with Romania —
                                                                            Normal value — Dumping margin — Injury — Procedural
                                                                                rights of exporters)
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 47/48)
in Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Control of concentrations — Action for annulment —
Admissibility — Object of the proceedings — Competence
of the Commission under Article 22(3) of Regulation (EEC)                   In Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98: Petrotub SA, established
No 4064/89 — Effect on trade between Member States —                        in Roman, Romania, and Republica SA, a company incorpor-
                  Creation of a dominant position)                          ated under Romanian law, established in Bucharest, Romania,
                                                                            represented by Alfred L. Merckx, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro &
                            (2000/C 47/47)                                  Lorang, 4 Boulevard Royal, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agents: Stephan Marquardt, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                            Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
                     (Language of the case: English)                        Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Viktor Kreuschitz)
                                                                            — application for the annulment of Council Regulation
In Case T-22/97: Kesko Oy, established in Helsinki, represented             (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive
by Gerwin van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, and Sarah Beeston,               anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against                         Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-402/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio): Agricola Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc di Mercati Federica (ATB) and Others v Ministero per le Politiche Agricole, Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and Mario Pittaro (Common organisation of the market — Raw tobacco — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 and of Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 1066/95 and 1067/95)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 302/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       —     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 of 12 May 1995
                                                                                amending Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying down detailed
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                          rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco.
                            of 6 July 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
in Case C-402/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Agricola Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc di Mercati Federica
(ATB) and Others v Ministero per le Politiche Agricole,
Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
                  (AIMA) and Mario Pittaro (1)
(Common organisation of the market — Raw tobacco —
Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 and of
 Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 1066/95 and 1067/95)                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 302/19)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      of 6 July 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-407/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                    in the European Court Reports)                           from the Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan, Sweden):
                                                                             Katarina Abrahamsson, Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogel-
In Case C-402/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                                    qvist (1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative                  (Concept of ‘national court or tribunal’ — Equal treatment
Court, Lazio), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            for men and women — Positive action in favour of women
pending before that court between: Agricola Tabacchi Bonavic-                             — Compatibility with Community law)
ina Snc di Mercati Federica (ATB) and Others and Ministero
per le Politiche Agricole, Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and Mario Pittaro, on the validity of                                            (2000/C 302/20)
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 of 27 March 1995
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common
organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1995 L 73,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
p. 13), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 of 12 May
1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the raw tobacco
quota system for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 harvests (OJ 1995                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L 108, p. 5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 of                                         in the European Court Reports)
12 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying
down detailed rules for the application of the premium system
for raw tobacco (OJ 1995 L 108, p. 11) — the Court (Sixth                    In Case C-407/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Överklagande-
teur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,               nämnden födr Högskolan (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    the proceedings pending before that court between Katarina
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Abrahamsson, Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogelqvist — on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it                  interpretation of Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive
held:                                                                        76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                             principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
                                                                             access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has          and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court
disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of:             (Fifth Chamber) composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 of 27 March 1995                     H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate General: A. Saggio; Registrar:
      amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common                     R. Grass, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it has
      organisation of the market in raw tobacco;                             ruled:
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 of 12 May 1995
      laying down detailed rules for the application of Council              1.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
      Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the raw tobacco                       9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
      quota system for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 harvests; and                       equal treatment for men and women as regards access to


title: Case T-100/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/31
According to the applicant, the remedy in the Shell/DEA case                Pleas in law and main arguments
remains ineffective as long as this problem is not addressed.
According to the applicant, the commitment from BP/E.ON,
that it will not use its voting rights to block any special                 The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
resolutions pending the sale of the shares to be divested, is               ethylene outside the ARG+ pipeline network.
insufficient and remains unclear on what is to happen in a
number of situations. The applicant claims therefore that this
commitment does not offer an interim solution at all.
                                                                            The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
                                                                            declaring an operation where Deutsche Shell GmbH would
                                                                            acquire sole control of the undertaking DEA Mineraloel AG
                                                                            under certain conditions compatible with the common market
(1) With the operation examined by the Commission in this case, BP,         and the EEA Agreement. These conditions were necessary
    together with E.ON would acquire joint control of Veba Oel. The         since the operation gave rise to substantial competition
    Decision of the Commission in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON              concerns on the ARG+ merchant ethylene market. In particu-
    is also contested by this applicant in Case T-101/02.                   lar, there was a risk of creating a joint dominant position of
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              Shell/DEA and BP/Veba Oel (case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of         E.ON (1).
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                            According to the applicant, the present Decision has an
                                                                            important effect on the ARG+ merchant ethylene market.
                                                                            There is a clear price link between this market and markets for
                                                                            merchant ethylene outside the ARG+, in which the applicant
                                                                            operates.
                                                                            The pleas and arguments put forward in the present case are
                                                                            the same as those put forward in Case T-99/02.
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (1) With the operation examined by the Commission in this case, BP,
                                                                                together with E.ON, would acquire joint control of Veba Oel. The
                           (Case T-100/02)                                      Decision of the Commission in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON
                                                                                is also contested by this applicant in Case T-102/02.
                          (2002/C 156/59)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV against the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             Commission of the European Communities
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by EVC International
N.V., represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC                                              (Case T-101/02)
and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels
(Belgium).
                                                                                (2002/C 156/60)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—      annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
       Decision in case no. COMP/M.2389-Shell/DEA in its
       entirety and/or insofar as it concerns the market for                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       supply of merchant ethylene;                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV,
                                                                            represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC and Mr
—      order the Commission to pay the costs                                Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).


title: Case T-650/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/22

      Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Zoltán Lomnici v European Parliament
      (Case T-650/13)
      (2014/C 71/41)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Zoltán Lomnici (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Lomnici, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 concerning Petition No 1298/2012

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea of failure to observe the obligation to state reasons and breach of the right of every Union citizen to a fair hearing. In that regard, he points out, inter alia, that his petition was filed without further action without any reasons being given, that he was not invited to the meeting and that he was not notified of the decision.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-35/97)

text:
No C 94/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 3 . 97
            agreement is of a type for which no precedents                         of a secure and reasonably-priced energy supply, to
            regarding whether it may be exempted are to be                         special control to prevent abuse with regard to
            found in either the practice of the Commission or                      pricing and terms of business ?
            the case-law of the Community judicature ?
                                                                                If the provisions of German law on the energy
     ( b ) If, in the circumstances described in ( a ), the action                 industry cannot provide support, are there other
            for a declaration of failure to act is unsuccessful,                   considerations which justify regarding those supply
            are the national authorities nevertheless precluded                    undertakings as entrusted undertakings within the
            from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty                        meaning of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and, if
            because the agreement is of a type whose                               so, what are they ?
            exemption has not as yet been dealt with at
            Community level ?                                                ( b ) If the electricity supply undertakings referred to
                                                                                are entrusted undertakings within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty:
5 . If parts ( a ) and ( b ) of Question 4 are answered in the
     negative :                                                                    What are the criteria for interpretation of the
                                                                                further requirements under Article 90 ( 2 ), that is
     Does a German municipal authority act as an                                   to say does the application of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
     undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of                         EC Treaty to a concession agreement obstruct the
    the EC Treaty if it enters into a concession agreement                         performance, in law or in fact, of the particular
    with an electricity supply undertaking operating in                            tasks assigned to them and, if so, does the
     Germany, under which it grants to that undertaking,                           exemption from the rules on competition
    in return for a concession fee calculated on the basis                         contained in the EC Treaty affect the development
    of electricity sales in the area covered by the                                of trade to such an extent as is contrary to the
    concession, the exclusive right to use the public roads                        interests of the Community ?
    in the authority's area for the purposes of installation
    and operation of the mains necessary for the direct
    supply of electricity to end users and itself agrees not
    to undertake the public supply of electricity, or cause
    it to be undertaken, in the area covered by the
    concession ?                                                       Action brought on 24 January 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
6 . If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative :                                                  Case C-35/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/ 16 )
    If the provision granting exclusive rights contained in
    a concession agreement with a local authority, as at               An action against the French Republic was brought before
    issue here, is found to be necessary in order to enable            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    the holder of the concession to undertake his supply               24 January 1997 by the Commission of the European
    operations, can that mean that there is no restriction             Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuyper and Pieter
    on competition within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of           Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, with an address for service
    the EC Treaty, or may that circumstance be taken into              in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
    account only when applying Article 90 (2 ) or                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty ?
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims
7. If Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty does apply:                    that the Court should :
    ( a ) Are the electricity supply undertakings operating in         1 . declare that, by excluding frontier workers residing in
           Germany which supply private and trade end users                 Belgium from qualifying for supplementary retirement
           undertakings entrusted with the operation of                     pension points after being placed in early retirement,
           services of general economic interest within the                 the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
           meaning of Article 90 (2 ) of the EC Treaty, on the              under Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of
           grounds that, in the interests of the secure and                 Regulation ( EEC) No 1612/68 of 16 October 1968 on
           reasonably-priced supply of energy to consumers                  freedom       of   movement       for    workers within    the
           under the German Energiewirtschaftsgesetz ( Law                  Community ( J );
           on the Energy Industry 'EnWG'), they are subject
           to a series of special provisions, that is to say they      2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
           need authorization from the competent energy
           supervisory authority (paragraph 5 of the EnWG),            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           are required under paragraph 6 of the EnWG to
           supply every person in the area covered by the              Infringement of Article 48 (2 ) of the EC Treaty and
          concession in accordance with published general              Article 7 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 , Article 48 of
          conditions and price tariffs and, lastly, under              the EC Treaty and, in particular, Article 7 ( 1 ) of
          paragraph 103 ( 5 ) of the Gesetz gegen Wettbe              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 prohibit discrimination
          werbsbeschrankungen ( Law Against Restriction on             against migrant workers in respect of conditions of
           Competition ), are subject, likewise in the interests       employment, in particular as regards remuneration and
 ---pagebreak--- 22. 3 . 97               I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/9
dismissal. The award of retirement pension points,                                authorities in the Member States from charging
including those awarded where the worker concerned has                            applicants administrative fees for processing their
been dismissed, constitutes a condition of employment                             applications for support payments, if those
agreed between the employer and the worker by virtue of                           administrative fees correspond to the rates which are
the fact that they are bound by collective agreements. The                        otherwise usual in national law and are so low that
fact that, following his dismissal, a frontier worker                             they are not capable of deterring applicants from
receives unemployment benefit in another Member State                             applying for support payments ?
pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/
71 (2) cannot constitute, for the employer ( that is to say,                ( b) If Question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative :
the supplementary retirement pension institution to which
he is affiliated and which carries out his contractual
obligations in the matter), a reason for depriving his                            Does Article 15 ( 3 ) of the said Council Regulation
former employee of the contractual advantages agreed.                             infringe higher-ranking Community law, in particular
Although the discrimination in question results from                              the principle of cooperation in good faith under
collective agreements and not from legislation, it                                Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the principle of
nevertheless represents an infringement of Community law                          proportionality under the third paragraph of Article 3 b
by the defendant State, since that State has not only                             of the EC Treaty, and the principle of subsidiarity
accepted the existence of such discrimination within                              under the second paragraph of Article 3b of the EC
supplementary retirement pension schemes but has                                  Treaty ?
approved those agreements and made them generally
compulsory;, by Article L 731-5 of the French Social
Security Code, membership of a supplementary retirement
pension scheme is compulsory for all employed persons
subject to a compulsory old-age pension scheme . Although
the management of supplementary retirement pension                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig
schemes is in principle left to the social partners, such                   Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court
schemes are in fact based on agreements between the                         of 18 October 1996 in the case of Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v.
social partners and the public authorities, which intervene                           Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum
actively in them, especially as regards the maintenance of
financial equilibrium.                                                                                ( Case C-37/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/18 )
The fact that the French supplementary retirement pension
schemes 'validate' periods of unemployment in France for
which benefit is paid to frontier workers who have lost                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
their job in another Member State does not eliminate or                     European Communities by an order of the First Chamber
make up for the discrimination applied, to their detriment,                 of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht
to frontier workers residing in another Member State .                      ( Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court) of 18 October
                                                                            1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
(') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .         27 January 1997, for a peliminary ruling in the case of
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .      Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen v. Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirt
                                                                            schaft Husum on the following questions :
                                                                            ( a ) Is Article 30a of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2066/
                                                                                92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation ( EEC )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig                            No 805/68 on the common organization of the market
Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht by order of that court                          in beef and veal and repealing Regulation ( EEC )
of 18 October 1996 in the case of Hilmar Kellinghusen v.                          No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the
             Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel                              special premium for beef producers and Regulation
                             ( Case C-36/97)
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums
                                                                                for maintaining suckler cows ( OJ No L 215 , 30 . 7.
                               ( 97/C 94/17)                                      1992, p. 49 ) to be interpreted as prohibiting the
                                                                                authorities in the Member States from charging
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                                applicants administrative fees for processing their
the European Communities by an order of the First                                 applications for aid, if those administrative fees
Chamber of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsge                            correspond to the rates which are otherwise usual in
richt ( Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court) of                               national law and are so low that they are not capable
18 October 1996, which was received at the Court                                  of deterring applicants from applying for aid ?
Registry on 27 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hilmar Kellinghusen v. Amt fur Land- und                        ( b ) If Question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative :
Wasserwirtschaft Kiel on the following questions :
( a ) Is Article 15 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/                  Does Article 30a of the said Council Regulation
       92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for                       infringe higher-ranking Community law, in particular
       producers of certain arable crops ( OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7.                   the principle of cooperation in good faith under
       1992, p. 12 ) to be interpreted as prohibiting the                         Article 5 of the EC Treaty, the principle of


C 31/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.2.2002
—     failure by the Commission to take into account the fact            —     to order the OHIM to register the trademark ‘Nicole’ for
      that the applicant has fulfilled its obligations under the               goods of class 3 including essential oils, cosmetics, hair
      contract, whereas Clause 2(c) of the General Terms and                   lotions, dentifrices and nail polish.
      Conditions of the Contract expressly provides that a
      contractor is not to be liable for a contractor which does
      not fulfil its obligations if it can show that it has not          Pleas in law and main arguments
      contributed to such failure to fulfil obligations. In that
      regard, the defendant had overrated the obligations
      attaching to the project coordinator;                              Applicant for the Com-         OPI Products Inc.
                                                                         munity trade mark:
—     the defendant disregarded in the present case the duties           The Community trade            The verbal mark ‘Nicole’ for goods
      enshrined in Article 1375 of the Italian Civil Code so far         mark concerned:                in class 3.
      as concerns the principle of good faith and the protection
      of legitimate expectations.                                        Proprietor of the right to     Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH
                                                                         the trade mark or sign         & Co. KG.
                                                                         asserted by way of oppo-
More generally, the applicant states that the object of the              sition in the opposition
contract in question is not for the supply of a piece of                 proceedings:
equipment or merely white goods, but of a thermal power
station whose technological characteristics should have proved           Trade mark or sign             The national verbal mark ‘Nicole’
to be something new and truly innovative. The applicant                  asserted by way of oppo-       for certain goods in class 3
therefore claims that the Commission’s conduct in the per-               sition in the opposition
formance of the contract should have been quite different to             proceedings:
that adopted, since the defendant was not in actual fact a party
to a synallagmatic contract, but a partner in the full sense of          Decision of the Oppo-          Partial rejection of the Oppo-
the word, sharing the contracting parties’ interest in developing        sition Division:               sition.
technology within the Member States.
                                                                         Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the Decision of the
                                                                         Appeal:                        Opposition Division for ‘dentrific-
                                                                                es’ in class 3 and dismissal of the
                                                                                further appeal by OPI Products
                                                                                Inc.
                                                                         Grounds of claim:              Violation of Article 43(2) of
Action brought on 23 November 2001 by OPI Products                                                      Council Regulation 40/94 in that
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               the proof of the use of the mark
                              Market                                                                    asserted by way of opposition was
                                                                                insufficient. The applicant further
                                                                                claims a violation of article 8(1)b
                         (Case T-288/01)                                                                of Council Regulation 40/94 since
                                                                                there is no likelihood of confusion
                                                                                or similarity of goods.
                          (2002/C 31/30)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-108/00 (1)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 November 2001 by OPI                                                    (2002/C 31/31)
Products Inc., represented by Mr Emmanuel Cornu and Mr Eric
De Gryse of Braun Bigwood SCRL, Brussels (Belgium).                                         (Language of the case: French)
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                         By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Third
was Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH & Co. KG.
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Case T-108/00: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
—     annul the decision of the third Board of Appeal in so far
      as it denies registration of the contested CTM application         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
      No 737 510 for the word mark ‘Nicole’ for ‘essential oils,
      cosmetics, hair lotions; including nail polish’ in class 3;


title: Removal from the register of Case C-180/94

text:
23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 248/ 13
      16 of the EEC Treaty ), the prohibition of discrimination         Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European
      ( Article 95 of the EEC Treaty) and other provisions of           Communities .
      Community law to make the exporter bear the full costs
      under national law of regular or occasional analyses ?            (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No L 180 , 6 . 7 . 1976 , p . 9 .
(2 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 10 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .                                        Removal from the register of Case C-95/94 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/29 )
                                                                        By order of 1 1 July 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        Removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 ( )                 ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/94 :
                            ( 95/C 248 /26 )                            Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain.
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 :
Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic
Republic .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-471/93
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                                              and Case C-47/94 (M
                                                                                ( 95/C 248 /30 )
                                                                        By order of 1 4 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
         Removal from the register of Case C-67/92 (*)                  register of Case C-471 /93 and Case C-47/94 : United
                            ( 95/C 248/27 )                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the Hellenic
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Republic .
 from the register of Case C-67/92 ( reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                 (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 and
 de Rennes): Societe l'Hexagone v. Societe des Auteurs,                        OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique ( SACEM ).
 O OJ No C 86 , 7. 4 . 1992 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-154/94 ( )
                                                                                95/C 248/31
                                                                         By order of 14 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
         Removal from the register of Case C-53/94 ( )                   of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             ( 95/C 248/28 )                             register of Case C-154/94 ( reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin ): Bahar Kockaya v.
  By order of 1 1 July 1 995 the President of the Fifth Chamber          Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
  of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-53/94 :                t 1 ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 26 February 2002 in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parliament (Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of investigation)

text:
C 144/40                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those        3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
      incurred by the applicants.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           26 February 2002
                                                                                27 February 2002
in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parlia-
                                 ment (1)
                                                                          in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for
(Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment —                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament                                            Designs) (OHIM) (1)
— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of
                              investigation)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of
                                                                          the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal —
                            (2002/C 144/84)                               Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/85)
In Case T-17/00, Willi Rothley, residing at Rockenhausen                                     (Language of the case: German)
(Germany), and the 70 other applicants whose names appear
in the Annex hereto, represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch,
lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and
H. Krück), supported by Council of the European Union
(Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı́ez Parra), Commission             In Case T-34/00, Eurocool Logistik GmbH, established in Linz
of the European Communities (Agents: J.-L. Dewost,                        (Austria), represented by G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address
H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker), Kingdom of the Netherlands                  for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: H. G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) and French Republic            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler, C. Vasak and L. Bernheim):            O. Montalto, E. Joly and G. Schneider): Action brought against
Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of                 the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
18 November 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of                        Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Procedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of                   Designs) of 9 December 1999 (Case R 233/1999-1), concern-
25 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the                   ing registration of the term EUROCOOL as a Community trade
Commission on the internal investigations conducted by the                mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Court of First Instance                P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-            Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-              given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February
2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the
                                                                                First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December
                                                                                1999 (Case R 233/1999-1);
2.    Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those incurred
      by the defendant in the main proceedings and in the application
      for interim relief;                                                 2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: Case F-37/08: Action brought on 20 March 2008 — Meister v OHIM

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/40

         Action brought on 20 March 2008 — Meister v OHIM
   (Case F-37/08)
   (2008/C 142/76)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Herbert Meister (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the implied decision of OHIM rejecting the applicant's complaint concerning alleged errors in his periodical report.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision of the President of OHIM of 3 January 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 27 August 2007;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the applicant damages (in an amount to be determined by the Tribunal) for non-material loss;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the President of OHIM, transmitted to the applicant on 7 January 2008, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 27 August 2007.


title: Case F-21/10: Action brought on 31 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/57

      Action brought on 31 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-21/10)
      (2010/C 161/92)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that the defendant sent a debit note relating to the fees of the lawyer who assisted him in Case T-241/03 to the lawyer who represented him in that case rather than to the applicant himself.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the implied decision rejecting the request of 23 February 2009.

                  —

                  In so far as necessary, annul the act, in whatever form, rejecting the complaint of 14 September 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 February 2009.

                  —

                  In so far as necessary, annul the note of 1 December 2009 written in French received by the applicant on 19 January 2010 enclosed with the attached translation of the note in Italian.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to make reparation for the material and non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the note of 4 December 2006 was prepared and sent to the lawyer who represented him in Case T-241/03 by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, or such other sum as the General Court may consider just and equitable.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date following that on which the request of 23 February 2009 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-259/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Management of waste from extractive industries — Failure to transpose or to communicate national transposition measures)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-259/09) (1)

   (Management of waste from extractive industries - Failure to transpose or to communicate national transposition measures)
   2010/C 80/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009


title: Case C-490/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — Cytochroma Development, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Appeal not brought against the operative part of the judgment under appeal — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/24

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Cytochroma Development, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-490/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Appeal not brought against the operative part of the judgment under appeal - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 409/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Cytochroma Development Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, of 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-583/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (Representation of a peace symbol) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a peace symbol — Application for restitutio in integrum — Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (Representation of a peace symbol)
   (Case T-583/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a peace symbol - Application for restitutio in integrum - Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court))
   (2016/C 270/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2015 (Case R 2788/2014-2), concerning an application for registration as an EU trade mark of a figurative sign representing a peace symbol.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.