title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 8 February 1995 in the case of Brühler Kreditbank eG v. Finanzamt Brühl (Case C-56/95)

text:
No C 119/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13 . 5 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — on the one hand, only profits made at the balance sheet
                                                                            date are to be included, and
1 . The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the
      expression 'exceptional circumstances' in Article 25 ( 1 )      — on the other hand, account must be taken of income for
      of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72. It was held                           the financial year to which the annual accounts relate,
      (paragraph 54 ) that that expression applies to                       irrespective of the date of receipt of such income,
      circumstances in which the Commission has discretion
      not to impose a countervailing charge, even though all
      the preconditions for the imposition thereof are met.           where a claim to a distribution on the basis of participating
      The appellant maintains that those are circumstances in         certificates ( GenuEscheine) conditional on sufficient
      which the Commission is obliged not to impose a                 distributable profit is capitalized in phase with the inclusion
      countervailing charge .                                         of profits by the distributing undertaking, even where the
                                                                      distribution does not become due until one bank working
                                                                      day following the general meeting of the distributing
2. The judgment appealed against was wrong to hold                    undertaking at which a resolution is passed appropriating
      (paragraph 62 ) that Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )      the profits for the preceding financial year ?
      No 2707/72 cannot be applied by analogy to a measure
      imposing a countervailing charge . According to the
      appellant, the effect sought to be achieved by a                (!) OJ No L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p . 11 .
      protective measure adopted under Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2707/72 is absolutely equivalent to the effect sought
      by the countervailing charge .
3 . Manifestly erroneous and lacking in justification is the
      assessment by the Court of First Instance (paragraph 63 )
      that it is permissible concurrently to require the
      imposition of surveillance measures ( in the form for           References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      example of an import certificate and security) and a            Circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli — by
      countervailing charge.                                          orders of that court of 15 and 22 February 1995 in criminal
                                                                      proceedings pending before it against Sandro Gallotti and
                                                                                Roberto Censi
4. Contrary to the holding in the judgment appealed
                                                                                ( Cases C-58/95 and C - 75/95 )
      against (paragraph 66 ), the 1990 framework agreement
      between the Community and Chile precludes the                                              (95/C 119/13 ).
      adoption of any unilateral measure including the
      imposition of a countervailing charge.
                                                                      References have been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities by orders of the Pretura
5 . The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance          Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
      ignored its entirely particular situation which is              (Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of 15
      attributable to the fact that at the material time certain
                                                                      and 22 February 1995 , which were received at the Court
      restrictions still applied to the movement of capital in        Registry on 6 and 14 March 1995 respectively, for a
      Greece under Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 .             preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Sandro
                                                                      Gallotti and Roberto Censi on the following questions:
                                                                      1 . What is the legal effect of the Italian Republic's failure to
                                                                             bring into force the necessary measures to implement
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                    Council Directive 91/156/EEC ( ] ) within the prescribed
KoIn by order of that court of 8 February 1995 in the case of               time limit ?
          Bruhler Kreditbank eG v. Finanzamt Briihl
                          (Case C-56/95 )                             2. In particular, may the existence of criminal penalties,
                           ( 95/C 119/12 )                                  and in particular those provided for in Articles 10 and
                                                                             25 ( Case C-75/95 ) and Article 25 etseq. ( Case C-58/95 )
                                                                             of Presidential Decree No 915/82 for failure to observe
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       the Italian rules, be considered to conflict with
Kôln ( Finance Court, Cologne ) of 8 February 1995, which                    Community legislation where it seeks to ensure uniform
was received at the Court Registry on 3 March 1995 , for a                  treatment, from the point of view of penalties as well, for
preliminary ruling in the case of Bruhler Kreditbank eG v.                   operators in the Single Market.
Finanzamt (Tax Office) Briihl on the following question:
                                                                      i 1 ) Council    Directive   91/156/EEC       amending   Directive
Is it in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 ( 1 ) (c), in         75/442/EEC, OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 .
particular indent ( aa ), and Article 31 ( 1 ) (d ) of the Fourth
Directive ( 78/660/EEC ) of 25 July 1978 ( 1 ), according to
which:


title: Case F-10/11: Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Bojinova and Ghiba v Commission

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/14

         Action brought on 7 February 2011 — Bojinova and Ghiba v Commission
   (Case F-10/11)
   2011/C 95/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Silvia Bojinova (Brussels, Belgium) and Dorina Maria Ghiba (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the selection boards for competitions COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and COM/INT/EU2/AST3 to reject the applicants’ candidatures on the ground that they did not meet the eligibility requirements stipulated in the notices of competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 11 May 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Silvia Bojinova’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 16 August 2010:

               —

               annul the decision of 10 Mau 2010 of the selection board rejecting Mrs Dorina Maria Ghiba’s candidature for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/AST3 and the confirmatory decision of the appointing authority of 26 October 2010 rejecting the related complaint lodged on 4 August 2010;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-198/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — EKETA v European Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/47

         Action brought on 29 March 2017 — EKETA v European Commission
   (Case T-198/17)
   (2017/C 151/60)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 38 241,00 of the payment received by it for the ACTIBIO project, that request being made in the debit note3241615335/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 9 353,56;

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615335/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the ACTIBIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the ACTIBIO project, a sum of EUR 38 241,00. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.

               2.

               In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.

               3.

               ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 9 353,56 constitutes eligible staff costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.


title: Case T-197/99: Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
— the proposal by the Commission, and the approval thereof               European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Anthony
    by the Council, regarding the signing of the bilateral               Gooch, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
    Agreement between the EC and Canada, inasmuch as it                  Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
    establishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for the EC from           sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    16 April 1995, and the adoption of Regulation (EC)                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
    No 1761/95 amending Regulation (EC) No 3366/94, by
    hich provision is made for certain conservation and
    management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    ory Area defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral
    Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ                 — annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s
    L 171 of 21.7.1995).                                                     request for compensation dated 28 April 1998;
In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that:                — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                             BEF 154 109, together with default interest at the annual
— the Commission has acted unlawfully, on account of                         rate of 8 % from 28 April 1998;
    the alleged serious shortcomings in its handling of the
    negotiations held within the framework of the NAFO
    Convention in September 1994 with a view to the                      — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    adoption of a series of measures for the administration and
    conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory
    Area. The said unlawfulness is based, in precise terms, on
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
    such grounds as its failure to defend the interests of the
    Community, lack of information and poor management
    on the part of the Community delegation and the adoption             The applicant entered into service with the Commission on
    of a TAC based on criteria other than those traditionally            1 September 1995. The applicant’s place of recruitment and
    applied;                                                             of origin was initially fixed as being London. On 20 September
                                                                         1996 the applicant submitted a request for exemption from
— the Council has acted unlawfully by accepting, without                 value added tax (VAT) in respect of the purchase of a car. By
    any reservation whatever, the forecasts contained in Article         note dated 23 September 1996 the Head of the Unit respon-
    XII of the NAFO Convention and the proposal by the                   sible for Management of Individual Rights decided to change
    NAFO Fisheries Commission that a total allowable catch of            the applicant’s place of recruitment from London to Brussels.
    27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut be established,            On 27 July 1997, following the lodging of a complaint, that
    when, in the applicants’ view, that position was contrary            department drew up a ‘file note’ (re)fixing London as the
    to the interests of the Community;                                   applicant’s place of recruitment.
— the institutions acted unlawfully in the negotiation and
    ratification of the bilateral fisheries Agreement between            Following that change in the fixing of the applicant’s place of
    Canada and the EC and in proposing and approving                     origin, the Commission on 27 July 1997 sent the request for
    Regulation (EC) No 1761/95, cited above, which esta-                 exemption from VAT to the Belgian authorities, who refused
    blishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for catches of                to act on it, on the ground that it was out of time. According
    Greenland halibut by the Community fleet with effect from            to the Belgian rules, any request by the applicant for exemption
    16 April 1995.                                                       should have been submitted before 20 November 1996. The
                                                                         applicant thereafter paid the sum of BEF 154 109 in respect
In the alternative, the applicants plead strict liability on the         of VAT, in accordance with instructions given by the Head of
part of the Community on account of their having committed               the Unit. However, the Commission has not reimbursed that
a breach of the principle of equal distribution of public                VAT to him.
burdens.
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations;
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     — breach of the principle of sound management and good
                                                                             administration;
                         (Case T-197/99)
                                                                         — failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
                         (1999/C 333/69)                                     welfare and interests of officials; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — failure to comply with Article 288(2) EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-424/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope — Occupational retirement pension schemes)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-424/11) (1)

   (Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope - Occupational retirement pension schemes)
   2013/C 123/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd, National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, Ford Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Salaried Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Pension Scheme for Senior Staff Trustee Ltd

      Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Request for preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) 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, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.1) — Exemptions — Scope of the exemption for the management of special investment funds — Inclusion of occupational retirement pension schemes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(6) 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 and Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-119/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing failure — Non-compliance — Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Recognition of acquired rights of former foreign-language assistants)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-119/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing failure - Non-compliance - Article 228 EC - Financial penalties - Recognition of acquired rights of former foreign-language assistants)
   (2006/C 224/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, Avvocato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of 26 June 2001 in Case C-212/99 — Infringement of Article 48 EC (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Recognition of the acquired rights of former foreign-language assistants — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Court declares that by not ensuring, at the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, recognition of the rights acquired by former assistants who have become associates and linguistic experts, even though such recognition is guaranteed to all national workers, the Italian Republic has failed to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 26 June 2001 in Case C-212/99 Commission v Italy and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-516/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2014  — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 November 2014 — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-516/14)
   (2015/C 034/11)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Question referred

   Must Article 226(6) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as permitting the Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira [Portuguese Tax and Customs Authority] to regard as insufficient a description on an invoice which states ‘legal services rendered from such a date until the present date’ or merely ‘legal services rendered until the present date’, where that body may, in accordance with the principle of collaboration, obtain the additional information which it deems necessary to confirm the existence and detailed characteristics of the relevant transactions?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

      OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-395/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a toy figure — Absolute grounds for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)
   (Case T-395/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a toy figure - Absolute grounds for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2014 (Case R 1695/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd and Lego Juris A/S.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-215/11: Action brought on 12 April 2011 — ADEDI and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/29

         Action brought on 12 April 2011 — ADEDI and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-215/11)
   2011/C 186/54
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Supreme Administration of Public Servants’ Unions (ADEDI) (Athens, Greece) S. Papaspiros (Athens, Greece) and I. Iliopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Tsipra, lawyer))

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15) under No 2011/57/EU;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15) under No 2011/57/EU.
   The applicants advance the following grounds in support of their pleas.
   First, the applicants submit that the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by the Treaties were exceeded in the adoption of the contested decision. More specifically, Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaties introduce the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In addition, under Article 5(2) of the Treaties it is expressly provided that any competence not conferred by the Member States on the European Union remains with the Member States. Pursuant to Article 126 et seq. of the Treaties, the measures which may be decided upon by the Council under the excessive deficit procedure and included in its decisions cannot be prescribed specifically, explicitly and without room for deviation, since that competence is not conferred upon the Council by the Treaties.
   Second, the applicants maintain that the legal basis relied upon for the adoption of the contested decision is Articles 126(9) and 136 of the Treaty. However, the contested measure was adopted in a manner that exceeded the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by those articles, simply as a measure implementing a bilateral agreement between the 15 Member States of the Euro zone, which decided to grant the bilateral loans, and Greece. Such a competence for adoption of a measure on the part of the Council is neither recognised nor prescribed by the Treaties.
   Third, the applicants maintain that, in introducing reductions to family allowances and means-testing of them, the contested decision affects acquired property rights of the applicants and was accordingly adopted in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights


title: Case C-564/14 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2014 by Raffinerie Heide GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-631/13 Raffinerie Heide GmbH v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/17

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2014 by Raffinerie Heide GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-631/13 Raffinerie Heide GmbH v Commission

   (Case C-564/14 P)
   (2015/C 034/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Eckart, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 September 2014;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as Article 1(1) of that decision, in conjunction with Annex I, Point A, to that decision, rejects the appellant’s inscription on the list submitted pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2003/87/EC and rejects the preliminary annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge to the appellant’s installation with the identifier DE000000000000010;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               By its first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges infringement of its procedural rights. In particular, it submits that the General Court in no way dealt with the appellant’s main complaint, which was conceded at the hearing before that Court, that the Commission had not individually examined the hardship cases that Germany had submitted to it.

               2.

               By its second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in assuming that Community emissions trading from the outset excludes individual hardship cases from being taken into consideration. It submits that the judgment under appeal therefore infringes Articles 11(3) and 10a of Directive 2003/87 EC as well as Commission Decision 2011/278.

               3.

               By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the Commission’s duty to interpret in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and in doing so infringed Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

               4.

               The fourth ground of appeal alleges a procedural error in the form of a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence because the General Court did not take the evidence of hardship submitted by the appellant into account in its reasoning.

               5.

               Lastly, the appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court infringes the fundamental rights set out in Articles 16 and 17, in conjunction with Article 52(1), CFREU. That judgment, it argues, errs in describing Commission Decision 2011/278 as consistent with fundamental rights and proportionate.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-706/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2014  — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA (Application for interim measures — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research and technological development — Decision refusing participation in certain projects — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 October 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA
   (Case T-706/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research and technological development - Decision refusing participation in certain projects - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 439/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: G. Gascard, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of the Research Executive Agency (REA) decision ARES (2014) 2461172 of 24 July 2014 excluding the applicant from participation in the ZONeSEC and Inachus projects.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-78/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 22 December 2004 in Gentilini unberto v Dal Colle Industria Dolciaria S.p.A.

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 22 December 2004 in Gentilini unberto v Dal Colle Industria Dolciaria S.p.A.
   (Case C-78/05)
   (2005/C 93/28)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Livorno (Italy) of 22 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gentilini unberto and Dal Colle Industria Dolciaria S.p.A.on the following questions:

               (a)

               Given the content of Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653 of 18 December 1986 (1) on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, can Article 19 be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for the national implementing legislation to provide that the indemnity owed to an agent is payable under a collective agreement binding on its signatories, without regard to the conditions set out in the two indents of paragraph 2(a) of Article 17 and is calculated not in accordance with the criteria to be found in the directive but in accordance with the criteria set in the collective economic agreement itself, with the result that, in many cases, the level of the indemnity to be paid would have to be significantly lower than the ceiling provided for in the directive.

               (b)

               Should the indemnity be calculated individually by estimating the further commissions that the agent could have earned in the years following termination of the contract on the basis of the new customers he has brought or the growth in business that he has generated, using the criterion of equity only to adjust the amount, or are other, composite, methods of calculation permitted, which make greater use of the criterion of equity.

      (1)  OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-209/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Measure implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for the bank Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (WestLB) — Merger of the Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (WfA) with WestLB — Resulting increase in own funds of WestLB — Remuneration of the Land as sole shareholder in WfA — Commission Decision 2000/392/EC — Obligation to recover the illegal State aid — Failure to implement)

text:
8.2.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 31/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann and
                                                                             V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                      of 12 December 2002                                    12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by not complying with Commission Decision
in Case C-209/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999 on a measure implemented by
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany for Westdeutsche Landesbank
                                                                                — Girozentrale (WestLB), the Federal Republic of Germany
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and
Measure implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany                             Article 3 of that decision;
for the bank Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale
(WestLB) — Merger of the Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt                        2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (WfA) with WestLB —
Resulting increase in own funds of WestLB — Remuneration
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
of the Land as sole shareholder in WfA — Commission
Decision 2000/392/EC — Obligation to recover the illegal
               State aid — Failure to implement)
                          (2003/C 31/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 10 December 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            in Case C-312/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities v Camar Srl and Others (1)
In Case C-209/00, Commission of the European Communities                     (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas
(Agents: F. Santaolalla and K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic              — Request for additional import licences — Adjustment of
of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by H.-F. Wissel):                tariff quota where necessary — Non-contractual liability of
Application for a declaration that, by not adopting within the                the Community — Action for annulment — Admissibility)
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary to withdraw and
recover the State aid granted to the Westdeutsche Landesbank                                            (2003/C 31/02)
Girozentrale between 1992 and 1998 which was declared
incompatible with the common market by Commission                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision 2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999 on a measure
implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Westdeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale (WestLB) (OJ 2000                                         in the European Court Reports)
L 150, p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC in conjunction
with Article 3 of that decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  In Case C-312/00 P: Commission of the European Communi-
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,                  ties (Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and L. Visaggio, assisted by


title: Case T-313/14: Action brought on 5 May 2014  — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a repetitive pattern with a raised effect)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/60

         Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a repetitive pattern with a raised effect)
   (Case T-313/14)
   2014/C 223/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France) (represented by M. Sabatier, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 March 2014 in Case R 459/2013-4, in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought against the Examiner’s decision, which refuses the protection of the Community trade mark system in respect of the international registration covering the European Union of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate some of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25;

               —

               allow the registration of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate all the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, and in the alternative to designate the products whose use has been expressly proven;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark representing a repetitive pattern with a raised effect in respect of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-401/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.12.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/9
No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (OJ 1997 L 325,                              for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of
p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    Gaye Gürol against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
implementation of Regulation No 338/97 (OJ 2001 L 250,
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,            1.    Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                      of the EEC/Turkey Association Council have direct effect
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,                     in the domestic legal systems of Member States of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                       European Community, so that Turkish children residing
on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                        legally in a Member State of the Community with their
                                                                                parents who are or have been legally employed in that
1.    Articles 2(w) and 8(3)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/                Member State, and who have the same qualifications as
      97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild                  the children of nationals of that Member State, are entitled
      fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by                  to equal access to general education, apprenticeship and
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November                        vocational training?
      1997 are to be interpreted as meaning that the animals referred
      to in Annex A to that regulation but which have been stuffed          2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      fall within the definition of ‘worked specimens’ for the purposes
      of those provisions.                                                        Do Turkish children still qualify as ‘residing legally with
                                                                                their parents’ if they establish and maintain their own
                                                                                principal residence at the place of their university edu-
2.    Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
                                                                                cation and are registered with only a subsidiary residence
      Regulation No 2307/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                at their parents’ address?
      receiving specimens as a gift or inheriting them, and killing
      animals and then taking them into one’s possession, makes
      them ‘acquired’ within the meaning of that provision. It is not       3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      necessary that the person who acquired the specimen more than
                                                                                Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
      50 years previously be the present owner.
                                                                                of the EEC/Turkey Association Council confer on the
                                                                                beneficiaries of that provision entitlement not only to
3.    Notwithstanding the provision in the second paragraph of                    equal access to educational facilities but also to equal
      Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    access to State benefits granted by the Member State with
      30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    the aim of facilitating participation in education or
      implementation of Regulation No 338/97, Article 8(3)(b) of                  training, or is Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/
      the latter regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the               Turkey Association Council to be interpreted as reserving
      management authority of the Member State concerned must                     to Member States the possibility of making the grant of
      have been able to ascertain that the specimen in question was               social benefits in the area of education subject to other
      acquired in accordance with the conditions laid down in                     conditions or of limiting those benefits?
      Article 2(w) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
      Regulation No 2307/97.
                                                                            4.    If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative:
                                                                                Does that also apply to a university education in the
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
                                                                                Turkish homeland for the beneficiaries?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July                          Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian
2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol                           Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-                                                    munities
                               Westfalen
                                                                                (Case C-401/03)
                           (Case C-374/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/14)
                           (2003/C 304/13)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                     Communities on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 31 July                  represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent and
2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003,                   Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    —    infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity
                                                                                and inadequate statement of reasons;
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 (1) of                     —    infringement of the principle of legitimate expec-
      27 June 2003, published in the Official Journal of the                        tations; inconsistency.
      European Union L 160 of 28 June 2003, p. 48, amending
      Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (2) as regards the rules of           C.    Misuse of powers
      eligibility for co-financing by the Structural Funds for
      procedural irregularities, as set out at points 52 to 59 of        (1) OJ 2003 L 160 of 28.06.2003, p. 3.
      Section I of the application;                                      (2) OJ 2000 L 242 of 27.09.2000, p. 39.
                                                                         (3) OJ 1999 L 161 of 26.06.1999, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, annul Article 2(a) in so far as it refers
      to Rule 1, points 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3 and Rule 1, points 1.2,
      2.1 and 2.3 of the annex on the basis of the pleas on the
      merits as set out at points 60 to 93 of Section II and
      points 94 to 102 of Section III of the application;                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                         by order of that Court of 26 September 2003 in the case
                                                                         of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka
—     annul all related and ancillary measures;                          Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and Michael
                                                                                Due Nielsen
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                                         (Case C-402/03)
      pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (Western Regional Court) of 26 September 2003, received at
                                                                         the Court Registry on 29 September 2003, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/
The applicant submits that Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003                  S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and
should be annulled on the following grounds:                             Michael Due Nielsen on the following questions:
A.    Grounds relating to the infringement of the ‘committee             Question 1
      procedure’ laid down by Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1260/1999 ‘the general regulation’:
                                                                         Does Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the
                                                                         approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
      —     infringement of essential procedural requirement             provisions of the Member States concerning liability for
            (Article 230 EC); infringement of Article 47(3) of           defective products (1) preclude a statutory system under which
            the general regulation (committees); failure to satisfy      an intermediary bears unlimited responsibility for the pro-
            the requirements for the adoption of the regulation.         ducer’s liability under the Directive?
B.    Pleas on the merits                                                Question 2
                                                                         Does the abovementioned Council Directive preclude a system
      —     infringement of essential procedural requirements:           under which the intermediary bears, in accordance with case-
            insufficient and inconsistent statement of reasons;          law, unlimited responsibility for the producer’s fault-based
                                                                         liability established in case-law in respect of liability for
                                                                         defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to
      —     infringement of Article 9(j) of Regulation (EC) No           consumers’ property?
            1260/1999 (3): definition of operation;
                                                                         Question 3
      —     further infringement of Article 9 and of Articles 8
            and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999;                      With reference to:
                                                                         1.    The Council of Ministers minutes in BEUC-News, Legal
      —     infringement of the principle of sound financial                   Supplement 12 November/December 1985, pages 20
            management;                                                        and 21, paragraph 2 of which states:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-531/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/11/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Road construction projects in certain Länder)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-531/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Road construction projects in certain Länder)
   (2005/C 115/13)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-531/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer and F. Simonetti) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski and M. Lumma) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 December 2003 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, for the purposes of road construction projects in the Land of Rheinland-Palatinate and by permitting, in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, on expiry of that time-limit, development consent for road construction projects by means of a planning approval procedure without an environmental impact assessment being carried out, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and under Article 4, in conjunction with point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I and point 10(e) of Annex II, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11.

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.


title: Case C-433/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — Freedom to provide services — Activities in the construction sector — Prevention of tax fraud in the construction sector — National legislation requiring the withholding of 15 % on payments to contracting partners not registered in Belgium — National legislation imposing joint and several liability for the tax debts of contracting partners not registered in Belgium)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-433/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 49 EC and 50 EC - Freedom to provide services - Activities in the construction sector - Prevention of tax fraud in the construction sector - National legislation requiring the withholding of 15 % on payments to contracting partners not registered in Belgium - National legislation imposing joint and several liability for the tax debts of contracting partners not registered in Belgium)
   (2006/C 326/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, Agent, and by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat,)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — National legislation requiring principals and contractors, on pain of a fine, to withhold 15 % of the amount billed by contracting partners not registered in Belgium and to pay the sum withheld to the Belgian authorities, in order to ensure that the tax debts of those contracting partners are paid — Joint and several liability of principals and contractors for the tax debts of their contracting partners who are not registered
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by obliging principals and contractors who have recourse to foreign contracting partners not registered in Belgium to withhold 15 % of the sum payable for work carried out and by imposing on those principals and contractors joint and several liability for the tax debts of such contracting partners, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 50 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-26/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-26/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)
   (2005/C 217/01)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-26/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 29 January 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.


13.10.2001            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 289/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/00 (1)                the register of Case C-26/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v French Republic.
                       (2001/C 289/51)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-406/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-27/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/54)
                                                                     By order of 13 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-410/00 (1)                the register of Case C-27/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/52)
By order of 30 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-410/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/55)
                                                                     By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case    C-26/01 (1)              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                     the register of Case C-105/01: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 289/53)                               ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): André van der
                                                                     Plas v Wouter Guis.
By order of 19 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-234/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — The Netherlands v Commission (Action for annulment — Decision 2004/01/EC — Dangerous substances — Authorisation by the Commission required to maintain notified national provisions — Position adopted by the Commission on the extent of harmonisation — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — The Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-234/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision 2004/01/EC - Dangerous substances - Authorisation by the Commission required to maintain notified national provisions - Position adopted by the Commission on the extent of harmonisation - Challengeable act - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 315/63)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster, J. van Bakel and M. de Grave, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Simonetti and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde, Agent)
   Re:
   ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/1/EC of 16 December 2003 concerning national provisions on the use of short-chain chlorinated paraffins notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(4) [EC] (OJ 2004 L 1, p. 20), in so far as, in that decision, the Commission takes the view that its approval under Article 95(6) EC is required for the maintenance of Netherlands legislation on the uses of short-chain chlorinated paraffins to which no reference is made in Directive 2002/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 amending for the 20th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (short-chain chlorinated paraffins) (OJ 2002 L 177, p. 21)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004 (formerly Case C-103/04).


title: Case T-586/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Market Economy Treatment (MET) — Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system — Tax incentives)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-586/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system - Tax incentives))
   (2016/C 156/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2014 L 142, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ 2014 L 253, p. 4).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case T-206/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
   (Case T-206/13)
   2013/C 171/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad, India)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 1 February 2013 in Case R 885/2012-5 pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No. 005 491 329 against Community trademark application No. 008 957 516‘STANCE’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STANCE’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application 8 957 516

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the black and white figurative mark ‘STANZA’, for goods and services in classes 25 et 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 65, 8(1)(b), 75, 76(1), (2) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-98/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Tubesca v OHIM — Tubos del Mediterráneo (T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A. — Earlier national word mark and international figurative mark TUBESCA — Relative ground of refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Tubesca v OHIM — Tubos del Mediterráneo (T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A.)
   (Case T-98/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark T TUMESA TUBOS DEL MEDITERRANEO S.A. - Earlier national word mark and international figurative mark TUBESCA - Relative ground of refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 160/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tubesca (Ailly-sur-Noye, France) (represented by: F. Greffe, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tubos del Mediterráneo S.A. (Sagunto, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2008 (Case R 518/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tubesca and Tubos del Mediterráneo S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tubesca to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-171/99 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais S.A., Jean-Marie Bissière and André Lompech against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-206/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/15
        1995, to make a retroactive allocation to the quota; no         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
        reply was ever given to that request;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    — It was only when recourse to the natural judicial forum,
        namely the Community judicature, was blocked by an              — Error of law as to the admissibility in the present proceed-
        insurmountable obstacle, in the form of the French                  ings of the reasons given in relation to the documentation
        national authorities, that direct proceedings were                  in the case and the procedural option of making a reference
        brought before the Community judicature, within the                 for a preliminary ruling: it is certainly true that such a
        national time-limit of three years.                                 reference would have been the most appropriate way of
                                                                            proceeding, but the rules governing the tariff classification
                                                                            of mushrooms according to the way in which they are
— Failure to have regard to the admissibility of a reference to             cooked evidently appeared, from the French standpoint, to
    special consultations on issues of fact and of law.                     be so clear that they did not warrant any such reference
                                                                            for a preliminary ruling. The appellants point out that the
— Infringement of the Community Customs Code and of the                     tariff classification of mushrooms has since formed the
    rules governing its application.                                        subject-matter of a number of regulations at Community
                                                                            level; in their view this reflects the erroneous approach
                                                                            adopted by the Community rules. They further recall that
                                                                            the Court of Justice, ruling on a question referred for a
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 30.                                            preliminary ruling by a national court of another Member
                                                                            State concerning a master arising in the same area during
                                                                            the same period, held its judgment of 4 July 1996 in
                                                                            Case C-296/94 (2) that Commission Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                            2163/92 on the levying of additional amounts in respect
                                                                            of deep-cooked mushrooms was invalid.
                                                                        — Erroneous legal assessment of the facts, in that the
                                                                            contested judgment found that the damage alleged had not
                                                                            been suffered.
                                                                        — Erroneous legal assessment of the facts, in that the
Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais                     contested judgment found that the application did not
S.A., Jean-Marie Bissière and André Lompech against the                     identify any unlawful failure to act on the part of the
order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of                         Commission.
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-206/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the                 — Failure to have regard to the respective spheres of com-
        Commission of the European Communities                              petence of the Commission and of the administrative
                                                                            authorities of the Member States in relation to customs
                                                                            rebates: in the case of inertia or reticence on the part of
                        (Case C-171/99 P)                                   national administrative authorities as regards the for-
                                                                            warding of a rebate application to the Commission,
                                                                            there is absolutely nothing that the Community citizen
                         (1999/C 226/24)                                    concerned can do in practice to remedy the situation. The
                                                                            right to have effective recourse to the courts and to receive
                                                                            a statement of the reasons underlying decisions of the
An appeal against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the                     national authorities which adversely affect a right conferred
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               by the Community rules constitutes a fundamental prin-
Communities in Case T-206/98 between Clauni S.A and                         ciple of Community law. By the same token, the principle
Others and the Commission of the European Communities                       of protection against arbitrary or disproportionate inter-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     vention by the administrative authorities has been
Communities on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A. Lomagenais S.A.,                   expressly confirmed on numerous occasions. It is clear,
Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech, represented by                      therefore, that, in circumstances involving a new instance
Daniel Veyssière, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service              of general failure on the part of the Commission to ensure
in Luxembourg at the Chamber of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                   the implementation of the Treaty, an individual may rely
                                                                            on the developmental force of the Court’s case-law. Article
                                                                            906a of the regulation governing the implementation of
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 the Community Customs Code provides a comprehensive
                                                                            mechanism for a fair examination of rebate applications
— set aside in its entirety the order declaring the action                  and, following years of litigation, for a statement of reasons
                                                                            to be given at Community lever, together with the legal
    inadmissible;
                                                                            guarantees and remedies relating thereto.
— allow the appellants’ claim for a rebate (1) or, more
                                                                        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 30.
    precisely, their application for annulment of the implicit          (2) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996, p. 7.
    decision rejecting their claim for a rebate, so as to enable
    them to demonstrate to the European Commission the
    validity of the tariff heading declared;


title: Case C-71/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 17 February 2000 in the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs- und Stadtentwicklungs GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland

text:
C 149/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                                                                         to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ L 333, 04.12.1997, p. 1.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             (2) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 (OJ L 262,
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,                27.09.76, p. 201).
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 August
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
( 1) OJ L 140, 12.05.1998, p. 10.                                        richtshof by order of that court of 17 February 2000 in
(2) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of        the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs- und Stadt-
     foodstuffs (OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 1.                             entwicklungs GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
                                                                                Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
                                                                                (Case C-71/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/34)
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         of the European Communities against Ireland                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                         hof (Higher Administrative Court) of 17 February 2000,
                            (Case C-69/00)                               received at the Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs-
                                                                         und Stadtentwicklungs GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
                           (2000/C 149/33)                               Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following
                                                                         question:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by               Do payments which an acquirer of dividend rights in a capital
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  company makes not on its own behalf but on behalf of its
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as          parent company constitute a ‘contribution of assets of any
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            kind’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                    the raising of capital?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 97/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 October 1997 amending for the 16th
      time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
      Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and        Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Acciaierie di Bolzano
      use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (2) or,       SpA against the judgment delivered on 16 December
      in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those         1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
      measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      that Directive; and                                                in Case T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-75/00 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 149/35)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation             Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 4 December            of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,


title: Case F-29/07: Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Quadu v Parliament

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/37

         Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Quadu v Parliament
   (Case F-29/07)
   (2007/C 117/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sandro Quadu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2006 appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities inasmuch as it determines his classification in grade AST 2, step 3;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 26 April 2006, the applicant, at the time a member of temporary staff of the Parliament classified in grade C*4, step 7, and successful candidate in an internal competition for clerical assistants (career bracket C4-5) No C/348, published before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants (1), was appointed as an official and classified in grade AST 2, step 3.
   In his action, the applicant asserts inter alia breach of the competition notice and of the principle of equality of treatment and of non-discrimination. In particular, he contests the administration's interpretation of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations as meaning that the members of temporary staff who are appointed officials only have the right to retain their former grade and step in cases where the appointment entails promotion to a higher grade.

      (1)  OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-496/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of J. Slob against het Productschap Zuivel

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of J. Slob against het Productschap Zuivel
   (Case C-496/04)
   (2005/C 31/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative court for trade and industry) Netherlands of 26 November 2004 received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob against het Productschap Zuivel on the following questions:

               —

               Is Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 (1) to be interpreted as giving a Member State a discretion as to whether to lay down a rule imposing on producers of milk products established in its territory an obligation to keep records which is more extensive than the obligation under Article 7(1)(f)?

               —

               If the answer to this question is affirmative, must it then be held that a rule requiring the producer to account to the administration for the quantity of butter produced and for its use, even where the butter has been destroyed or used as feeding stuff, is within the Member State's discretion?

      (1)  OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p 12.


title: Case T-64/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/41

         Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission
   (Case T-64/08)
   (2008/C 92/81)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino, G, Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the contested decision is unlawful and annul that decision in its entirety inasmuch as it regards as State aid the contested measure, which in fact constitutes a lawful continuation of the measure by which the Italian State granted compensation to Terni SpA (and its assignees) for the expropriation of its electricity plants which occurred in 1962-63;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision insofar as it:

                           (a)

                           states that Italy unlawfully paid State aid to ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty;

                           (b)

                           states that there are amounts to be recovered from ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche; and consequently

                           (c)

                           orders Italy to recover those amounts plus interest without delay;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it orders Italy to recover the State aid plus interest without delay, since that recovery infringes the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp v Commission.


title: Case T-297/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2007 — IPK International World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission (Interim measures — Article 256 EC — Subject-matter of the application — Admissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/24

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2007 — IPK International World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission
   (Case T-297/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Article 256 EC - Subject-matter of the application - Admissibility - Lack of urgency)
   (2007/C 140/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent, and C. Arhold, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 relating to recovery of the sum of EUR 318 000 received by the applicant as an advance in respect of the Ecodata project.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.