title: Case T-27/09: Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Stella Kunststofftechnik v OHIM

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Stella Kunststofftechnik v OHIM
   (Case T-27/09)
   (2009/C 82/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Stella Kunststofftechnik GmbH (Eltville, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Stella Pack Sp. z o. o. (Lubartow, Republic of Poland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 13 November 2008, notified on 19 November 2008, and hold that the application of 22 December 2006 for a declaration of revocation ought to have been dismissed as being inadmissible;

               —

               in the alternative, suspend the decision on the application for a declaration of revocation of 22 December 2006 until the opposition proceedings in opposition B 863177 have been concluded in law, and at the same time annul the decision of 13 November 2008 and that of the Cancellation Division of 27 February 2008;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the recoverable costs, including those of the initial proceedings and of the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of revocation has been sought: the word mark ‘Stella’ for goods in Classes 6, 8, 16, 20 and 21 (Community trade mark No 15 479)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of revocation: Stella Pack Sp. z o. o

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of revocation of the Community trade mark concerned for certain goods in Classes 6, 8, 16 and 20

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the applicant's appeal

      Pleas in law: Failure to have regard for the conditions governing admissibility in Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) which must automatically be complied with in proceedings for a declaration of revocation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-331/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 13 June 2016 — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg (Netherlands) lodged on 13 June 2016 — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-331/16)
   (2016/C 326/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) permit a Union citizen, as in the present case, in respect of whom it has been established in law that Article 1(F)(a) and (b) of the Refugee Convention is applicable to him, to be declared undesirable because the exceptional seriousness of the crimes to which that Convention relates leads to the conclusion that it must be assumed that, by its very nature, the threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society is permanently present?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, how should an assessment be carried out, in the context of an intended declaration of undesirability, of whether the conduct of a Union citizen, as referred to above, to whom Article 1(F)(a) and (b) of the Refugee Convention has been declared applicable, should be regarded as a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society? To what extent does the fact that the 1(F) conduct, as in the present case, took place long ago — in this case: in the period between 1992 and 1994 — play a role therein?

               3.

               In what way does the principle of proportionality play a role in the assessment of whether a declaration of undesirability can be imposed on a Union citizen to whom Article 1(F)(a) and (b) of the Refugee Convention has been declared applicable, as in the present case? Should the factors mentioned in Article 28(1) of the Residence Directive be involved, either as part of such an assessment, or separately? Should the period of ten years’ residence in the host country mentioned in Article 28(3)(a) be taken into account, either as part of such an assessment, or separately? Should the factors listed in paragraph 3.3 of the Guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC, (COM (2009)313), be fully involved?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-284/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of Stratmann GmbH & Co. KG v Landrätin of Wesel Local Authority

text:
C 302/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rappor-               Action brought on 27 December 1999 by Portuguese
teur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, and                       Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                                              ties
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                                       (Case C-509/99)
Registrar, has made an order on 21 June 2000, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                                        (2000/C 302/26)
1.    The action is dismissed.                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
2.    The French Republic is to pay the costs.                            Communities on 27 December 1999 by the Portuguese Repub-
                                                                          lic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                  Services of the Directorate General for Community Affairs at
                                                                          the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria Luı́sa Duarte,
                                                                          Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon, acting
                                                                          as Agents, and by Miguel Galvão Teles and Mário Marques
                                                                          Mendes, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 24 Rue Guillaume
                                                                          Schneider.
Action brought on 13 October 1999 by Portuguese                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      1.    find the present application admissible and
                          (Case C-391/99)                                       (a)   declare non-existent Commission Decision of
                                                                                20 October 1999 (C (1999) 3370 final) relating to
                          (2000/C 302/25)                                             a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) of 21 December
                                                                                1989 on the control of concentrations between
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             undertakings (Case IV/M 1616 — A. Champali-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          maud/BSCH)
Communities on 13 October 1999 by the Portuguese Repu-
blic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal                     (b) in the alternative, declare the abovementioned
Services of the Directorate General for Community Affairs at                          Decision void.
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria Luı́sa Duarte,
Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon, acting          2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Portuguese Embassy, 24 Rue Guillaume Schneider.                           By Order of 14 September 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal of the case from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the Register of the Court.
1.    find the present application admissible and                         (1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
      (a)   declare non-existent Commission Decision of
            20 July 1999 (C (1999) 2406 final) relating to
            a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council
            Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) of 21 December
            1989 on the control of concentrations between
            undertakings (Proc. IV/M 1616 — A. Champali-                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
            maud/BSCH)                                                    tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Stratmann GmbH & Co. KG v Landrätin of Wesel Local
      (b) in the alternative, declare the abovementioned                                               Authority
            Decision void.
                                                                                (Case C-284/00)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/27)
By Order of 13 September 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal of the case from          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Register of the Court.                                                European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
                                                                          Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2000, for
                                                                          a preliminary ruling in the case of Stratmann GmbH & Co. KG
                                                                          v Landrätin (Administrative Head) of Wesel Local Authority
                                                                          on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/15
Does the standard fee applicable under                                          decisions to classify certain actions as ‘new aid’ within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(a)   Council Directive 85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985 in                     amendment, Article 87 EC) and to initiate the procedure
      conjunction with Council Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of                       under Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty)
      15 June 1988;                                                             if they consider that the measures in question are ‘existing
                                                                                aid’ falling to be treated under the different procedure
(b) Council Directive 85/73/EEC, as amended by Council                          provided for in Article 88(1) EC (ex Article 93(1) of the
      Directive 93/118/EEC (3) of 22 December 1993,                             EC Treaty).
      for the inspection of fresh meat intended for the domestic
      market in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/                  2.   The Italian Republic submits that the Commission mani-
      EEC (4) of 26 June 1964,                                                  festly erred in law in deciding what legal basis was
                                                                                appropriate for assessing the compatibility with Com-
(a)   as amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (5) of 11 December                     munity law of the national provisions at issue: it should
      1989;                                                                     have carried out its own exhaustive analysis exclusively
(b) as amended by Directive 91/497/EEC(6) of 29 July 1991,                      in relation to the provisions of the postal directive. That
                                                                                error as regards legal basis led in this case to a clear
                                                                                infringement of essential procedural requirements and
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (7) of                      misuse of powers, in that a procedure under Article 86(3)
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out                     EC was initiated, whereas any criticism alleging incorrect
inspections of fresh pigmeat for trichinae?                                     transposition of the postal directive should have been
                                                                                made under the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                       (ex Article 169 of the EC Treaty).
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15.
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.                             By taking that course of action, the Commission also
( 5) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                      infringed Article 86(3) EC, which was not applicable to
( 6) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.                                                      this case, and Article 226 EC, through wrongful failure to
( 7) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                      apply the latter.
                                                                                Finally, no reasons whatsoever were given for the Com-
                                                                                mission’s choosing a procedure different from that pre-
                                                                                scribed by Article 226 of the Treaty, although a statement
                                                                                of reasons was particularly necessary in view of the grave
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Italian Republic                          consequences of the choice made.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case C-286/00)
                           (2000/C 302/28)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 20 July 2000
by the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and
Francesca Quadri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
Adélaïde.                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                           tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                           Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Local Authority
—     annul the Commission’s letter of formal notice No SG
      (2000) — D/103687 dated 16 May 2000;
                                                                                (Case C-288/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/29)
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
1.    The Italian Republic observes that letters before action,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      despite being a preliminary to a possible decision under             European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
      Article 86 EC (ex Article 90 of the EC Treaty), nevertheless         Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
      constitute measures which have external repercussions                which was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2000, for
      and give rise immediately to adverse legal effects for their         a preliminary ruling in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH &
      addressees. Accordingly, it is clear that the Member                 Co. KG v Landrat (Administrative Head) of Neuss Local
      States and interested parties may challenge Commission               Authority on the following question:


title: Case T-1/12: Action brought on 2 January 2012 — France v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/20

         Action brought on 2 January 2012 — France v Commission
   (Case T-1/12)
   2012/C 80/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2011) 7808 final of 24 October 2011, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the restructuring aids which the French authorities proposed to grant to SeaFrance SA in the form of an increase in capital and loans granted by SNCF to SeaFrance.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found that the question whether the two loans proposed by SNCF were reasonable had to be considered together with the rescue and restructuring aid. This plea is divided into two branches based:

                           —

                           first, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly interpreted the Court’s judgment in Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235; and

                           —

                           second, in the alternative, on the fact that the Commission incorrectly applied that judgment of the Court.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU when the Commission found, for the sake of completeness, that the French authorities have not proved that, considered in isolation, the two loans proposed by SNCF would have been granted at a market rate. That plea is divided into two branches based on:

                           —

                           first, the fact that the Commission incorrectly excluded the two loans at issue from the application of the Commission Communication of 19 January 2008 on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates; (1) and

                           —

                           second, the fact that the Commission incorrectly found that, to be compatible with the market, the rate of the loans in question should have been around 14 %.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and of fact when the Commission found that the restructuring aid is incompatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, interpreted in the light of the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU which provides that the Treaties are not in any way to prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6.


title: Case T-82/11: Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Formica v OHIM — Silicalia (CompacTop)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Formica v OHIM — Silicalia (CompacTop)
   (Case T-82/11)
   2011/C 113/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Formica, SA (Galdakao, Spain) (represented by: A. Goméz López, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Silicalia, SL (Valencia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               declare as not being in accordance with Regulation EC No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark the decision of 9 December 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 1083/2010-1;

               —

               allow registration of the complex Community trade mark No 6 524 243 CompacTop, in Class 20; and

               —

               order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Formica

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘CompacTop’ for goods in Class 20.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silicalia, SL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word elements ‘COMPACquartz’, ‘COMPACMARMOL&QUARTZ’ and ‘COMPAC MARMOL&QUARTZ’ for goods and services in Classes 19, 27, 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

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

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the case of Sabel BV v. Puma AG (Case C-251/95)

text:
No C 248/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23 . 9 . 95
If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European             du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
Communities for a preliminary ruling:                                    by judgment of that court of 12 July 1995 in the case of
                                                                         Futura Participations SA and Singer against Administration
'In the case of a request that candidates be proposed for                                        des Contributions
posts in the administration of the Commission of the                                               ( Case C-250/95 )
European Communities, made during a meeting between
the Permanent Representatives and the Secretary:General of                                            ( 95/C 248/ 11 )
the Commission and directly addressed to the Member
States with no other form of publicity, or outhwith a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
recruitment procedure published in the Official Journal of               European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
the European Communities, is such a request valid,                       du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
particularly having regard to the rules governing the                    ( Council of State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,
recruitment of members of the temporary staff and officials              Judicial Division ) of 12 July 1995 , which was received at the
of the Commission ?'                                                     Court Registry on 19 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Futura Participations SA and Singer against
                                                                         Administration des Contributions on the following
                                                                         question :
                                                                         Are Article 157 of the Law on income tax and, in so far as is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal                  necessary, Article 4 and the second subparagraph of
tungsgerichtNordrhein- Westfalen by orders of that court of              Article 24 ( 2 ) of the France-Luxembourg Convention on
29 May 1995 in the cases of Firirta SAM Schiffahrt GmbH v.               double taxation compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty
Federal Republic of Germany and Heinz Stapf v. Federal                   inasmuch as they make the application to non-resident
                        Republic of Germany                              taxpayers having a permanent business'in Luxembourg of
                ( Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 )                          provisions on the carrying forward of losses subject to the
                                                                         condition that the losses should be related to income
                              ( 95/C 248/10
                                                                         received locally and that accounts should be duly made up
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          and kept within the country ?
of the European Communities by orders of the
 Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher
Administrative Court, North Rhine Westphalia ) of 29 May
 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry on 19 July
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Firma SAM               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes
Schiffahrt GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany and                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the
                                                                                case of Sabel BY v. Puma AG
Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany on the
following questions :                                                                               ( Case C-251/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/12 )
 1 . was     the adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No    1101 /89 (*), Commission Regulation ( EEC )                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       No   1102/89 ( 2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Senate
       No   3685/89 ( 3 ) appropriate within the meaning of               of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of
       Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?                          29 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          20 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sabel BV
 2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can those         v. Puma AG on the following questions :
       regulations become invalid if, subsequently to their
       adoption, they cease to be appropriate within the                  With reference to the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
       meaning of Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?               of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                          approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
 3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, were the          marks ( 89/104/EEC ) ('):
       Regulations still appropriate at the relevant time for the
       levying of the 1990 contributions to the Scrapping                 is it sufficient for a finding that there is a risk of confusion
       Fund ?                                                             between a sign composed of text and picture and a sign
                                                                          consisting merely of a picture, which is registered for
 4. Does the obligation laid down in the Regulations to                   identical and similar goods and is not especially well known
       pay contributions for 1990 infringe fundamental                    in commerce, that the two signs coincide as to their
       Community rights or other Community law, in                        signification ( in this case, a leaping feline beast of prey )?
       particular the right to property, the right to pursue a
       trade or profession, the principle of equality and the             What is the significance in this connection of the wording of
       principle of proportionality ?                                     the Directive, according to which the risk of confusion
                                                                          includes the likelihood that a mark may be associated with
 0 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .                                an earlier mark ?
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 360 , 9 . 12 . 1989 , p . 20 .                              (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 1 .


title: Case T-180/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/18

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)
   (Case T-180/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 269/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2907/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case C-481/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Commission Decision rejecting a complaint brought against Eurocontrol — Actual and certain damage)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-481/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Commission Decision rejecting a complaint brought against Eurocontrol - Actual and certain damage)
   2009/C 220/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciandone and A. Neri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, agents.)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission dismissing as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law the action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of an alleged infringement by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.


title: Case C-498/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Spirál-Gép Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Spirál-Gép Kft. v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
   (Case C-498/15)
   (2016/C 027/05)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spirál-Gép Kft.

      Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) (‘the Eurovignette Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a system of penalties such as that laid down in Annex 9 to Decree No 410/2007 of 29 December on the list of traffic offences subject to the penalty of an administrative fine, the amount of the fines that may be imposed in the event of breach of the relevant provisions, the system of imposing those fines and the conditions for participating in controls [a közigazgatási bírsággal sújtandó közlekedési szabályszegések köréről, az e tevékenységekre vonatkozó rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről, felhasználásának rendjéről és az ellenőrzésben történő közreműködés feltételeiről szóló 410/2007. (XII. 29.) Korm. Rendelet] (‘the Law on penalties’) which provides for the imposition of a fine at a certain amount — unrelated to the gravity of the offence — in the event of failure to comply with the requirements relating to the acquisition of a route ticket?

               2)

               Does Paragraph 9 of the Law on penalties comply with the requirement imposed by Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive, according to which penalties established under national law must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive?

               3)

               Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of the Eurovignette Directive be interpreted as precluding, on the one hand, a system of penalties such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the strict liability of the person responsible for an offence and, on the other hand, the amount of the fine laid down under that system?

      (1)  Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42).


title: Case C-452/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 October 2004 in the case of Fidium Finanz AG against Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 October 2004 in the case of Fidium Finanz AG against Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
   (Case C-452/04)
   (2005/C 6/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main (Germany) of 11 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fidium Finanz AG against Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht on the following questions:

               1.

               Can an undertaking having its registered office in a country outside the European Union, in this case Switzerland, rely on the freedom of movement of capital under Article 56 EC in respect of the commercial grant of credit to residents of a Member State of the European Union, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany, as against that Member State and the measures taken by its authorities or courts, or are the preparation, provision and performance of such financial services covered solely by the freedom to provide services under Article 49 et seq. EC?

               2.

               Can an undertaking having its registered office in a country outside the European Union rely on the freedom of movement of capital under Article 56 EC where it grants loans commercially or predominantly to residents domiciled within the European Union and has its registered office in a country in which it is not subject, in relation to the taking up and conduct of that business activity, to the requirement of prior authorisation by a State authority of that country or the requirement of regular supervision of its business activity in a manner which is customary in respect of credit institutions within the European Union, and in this particular case within the Federal Republic of Germany, or does reliance on freedom of movement of capital in such a case constitute misuse of the law?
               Can such an undertaking be treated, in relation to the law of the European Union, in the same way as persons and undertakings established in the territory of the relevant Member State as regards the obligation to obtain authorisation even though it does not have its registered office in that Member State and also does not maintain a branch there?

               3.

               Do rules which make the commercial grant of credit by an undertaking having its registered office in a country outside the European Union to residents within the European Union subject to authorisation being obtained beforehand from an authority of the relevant Member State of the European Union in which the borrower is domiciled interfere with the freedom of movement of capital under Article 56 EC?
               In this respect is it relevant whether the unauthorised commercial grant of credit constitutes a criminal offence or merely an administrative one?

               4.

               Is the prior authorisation requirement referred to in Question 3 justified by Article 58(1)(b) EC, in particular as regards

                           —

                           protecting borrowers from contractual and financial obligations towards persons whose reliability has not been checked beforehand,

                           —

                           protecting this category of persons from undertakings or persons operating improperly with regard to their bookkeeping and their obligation under general rules to provide customers with advice and information,

                           —

                           protecting this category of persons from inappropriate or improper advertising,

                           —

                           ensuring that the lending undertaking has adequate financial resources,

                           —

                           protecting the capital market from the unmonitored grant of large-scale credits, and

                           —

                           protecting the capital market and society as a whole from criminal practices as covered in particular by the provisions on combating money laundering and terrorism?

               5.

               Does Article 58(1)(b) EC cover the formulation of an authorisation requirement permissible per se under Community law – in the sense of Question 3 – to obtain which it is mandatory for the undertaking to have its central administration or at least a branch in the Member State concerned to be granted authorisation, in particular in order to

                           —

                           enable business processes and transactions to be genuinely and effectively monitored, that is to say even with little or no notice, by the bodies of the Member State concerned,

                           —

                           render business processes and transactions completely intelligible by means of the documents available or to be submitted in the Member State,

                           —

                           have access to those personally responsible for the undertaking in the territory of the Member State, and

                           —

                           ensure, or at least facilitate, payment of the claims of the undertaking's customers within the Member State?


title: Case C-17/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Article 3(1) — Natural person entering or leaving the European Union — Obligation to declare — International transit area of a Member State’s airport)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects
   (Case C-17/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Article 3(1) - Natural person entering or leaving the European Union - Obligation to declare - International transit area of a Member State’s airport))
   (2017/C 213/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted to the effect that the obligation to declare laid down in that provision is applicable in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-564/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor/Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/65

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor/Commission
   (Case T-564/15)
   (2015/C 398/79)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2015 rejecting the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Commission Implementing decision C(2014)1921 final of 26 March 2014 establishing a multi-Annual Work Programme 2014 for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility;

               —

               order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment

                           —

                           The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other, similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.


title: Case C-137/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Article 11 — Directive 2010/75/EU — Industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) — Article 25 — Access to justice — Non-compliant national procedural rules)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-137/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Article 11 - Directive 2010/75/EU - Industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) - Article 25 - Access to justice - Non-compliant national procedural rules))
   (2015/C 406/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and G.Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by restricting:

                           —

                           under Paragraph 46 of the Law on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), the annulment of decisions on the ground of procedural defect to where there has been no environmental impact assessment or pre-assessment and to cases where the applicant establishes that there is a causal link between the procedural defect and the outcome of the decision;

                           —

                           in accordance with Paragraph 2(3) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, the standing to bring proceedings and the scope of the review by the courts to the objections which have already been raised within the time-limit set during the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the decision;

                           —

                           under Paragraph 5(1) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, in procedures initiated after 25 June 2005 and closed before 12 May 2011, the standing to bring proceedings of environmental associations to the legal provisions which confer individual public-law rights;

                           —

                           in accordance with Paragraph 2(1), read in conjunction with Paragraph 5(4) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, in procedures which were initiated after 25 June 2005 and closed before 12 May 2011, the scope of the review by the courts of actions brought by environmental associations to the legal provisions which confer individual public-law rights, and

                           —

                           by excluding, in accordance with Paragraph 5(1) and (4) of the Law on supplementary provisions governing actions in environmental matters under Directive 2003/35/EC (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz) of 7 December 2006, as amended by the Law of 21 January 2013, from the scope of the national legislation administrative procedures initiated before 25 June 2005,
                           the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Article 25 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-395/17: Action brought on 30 June 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/5

         Action brought on 30 June 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-395/17)
   (2017/C 347/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations pursuant to Article 5 (subsequently Article 10) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union) in not compensating the loss of the amounts of own resources which had to be established and made available for the Union budget pursuant to Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Regulation 1552/1989 (1) (now Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Regulation 1150/2000 (2)) if no movement certificates EUR.1 were issued in breach of Article 101(1) of Council Decision 91/482 (3) and Article 12(6) of Annex II to that decision for the import of milk powder and rice from Curacao in the period 1997-2000, Article 35(1) of Council Decision 2001/822 (4) and Article 15(4) of Annex III to that decision respectively for the import of groats and meal from Aruba in the period 2002-2003;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The customs authorities of Curacao and Aruba, two overseas countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, wrongly issued certificates of origin EUR.1 for milk powder, rice, groats and meal. It is indeed undisputed that the conditions for according preferential status under the relevant decisions concerning the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community were not met. The irregularities in the certificates led to a loss of own resources for the Union of EUR 18 192 641,95 for the administrative errors in Curacao and of EUR 298 080 for the administrative errors in Aruba.
   The Commission is of the view that the Netherlands, as Member State, is responsible under EU law for this loss of own resources caused by its subregions, and that, under the obligation of loyal cooperation, the Netherlands must make the total amount of unestablished and uncollected customs duties and charges (plus rent) available to the EU budget.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (‘Overseas Association Decision’) (OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-214/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in public procurement — Transposition — "Contracting authority" — Public law body — Reviewable acts — Interim measures)

text:
C 158/2                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       —     allow review to be sought of all decisions adopted by the
                                                                                contracting authorities, including all procedural
                                                                                measures, during the procedure for the award of public
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           contracts; and
                                                                             —     provide for the possibility of all appropriate interim
                          of 15 May 2003                                           measures being granted in relation to decisions adopted
                                                                                by the contracting authorities, including measures sus-
                                                                                pending administrative decisions, removing for that pur-
in Case C-214/00: Commission of the European Communi-                              pose all difficulties and obstacles and in particular the
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)                                    need first to bring an action against the decision of the
                                                                                contracting authority,
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
89/665/EEC — Review procedures in public procurement —                       Community law, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R.
Transposition — ‘Contracting authority’ — Public law body                    Schintgen, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, V.
           — Reviewable acts — Interim measures)                             Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, and J. N. Cunha
                                                                             Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                          (2003/C 158/02)                                    15 May 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                           1.    By failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
                                                                                21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             and administrative provisions relating to the application of
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  review procedures to the award of public supply and public
                                                                                works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC
                                                                                of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts, and in particular:
In Case C-214/00: Commission of the European Communities                           —     by failing to extend the system of review procedures
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz                           provided for by that directive to decisions adopted by
Vaamonde) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                            companies governed by private law set up specifically to
adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 1 and 2                             meet needs in the general interest which are not of an
of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on                                   industrial or commercial character, have legal personality,
the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative                             and whose business is for the most part financed by the
provisions relating to the application of review procedures to                           public authorities or other bodies governed by public law,
the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ                                or those whose operations are subject to supervision by
1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/                               the latter, or whose administrative, management or
EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures                           supervisory body is made up of members of whom more
for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                         than one-half are appointed by the public authorities or
and in particular by failing to:                                                         other bodies governed by public law;
                                                                                —     by subjecting, as a general rule, the possibility of
—     extend the system of review procedures provided for by
                                                                                appropriate interim measures being granted in relation to
      that directive to decisions adopted by all contracting
                                                                                decisions adopted by the contracting authorities to the
      authorities, within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Direc-
                                                                                requirement that an action must first be brought against
      tives 92/50, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                                the decision of the contracting authority, the Kingdom of
      1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Council
                                                                                directive.
      Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
      coordination of procedures for the award of public works
      contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), including companies                  2.    .The remainder of the application is dismissed.
      governed by private law set up specifically to meet needs
      in the general interest which are not of an industrial or              3.    .The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
      commercial character, have legal personality, and whose                      bear one third of the costs and the Kingdom of Spain is ordered
      business is for the most part financed by the public                         to pay two thirds of the costs.
      authorities or other bodies governed by public law, or
      those whose operations are subject to supervision by
      the latter, or whose administrative, management or                     (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
      supervisory body is made up of members of whom more
      than one-half are appointed by the public authorities or
      other bodies governed by public law;


title: Case C-356/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court, Ireland by order of that court of  30 July 2004  in Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General and Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court, Ireland by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General and Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland
   (Case C-356/05)
   (2005/C 315/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court, Ireland of 30.07.2004, received at the Court Registry on 23.09.2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Elaine Farrell and Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General and The Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland on the following questions:

               1.

               As of December 31st 1995 the date by which Ireland was obliged to implement the provisions of the Third Directive (1) in respect of passengers on vehicles other than motorcycles, did Article 1 of the Third Directive oblige Ireland to render insurance compulsory in respect of civil liability for injury to individuals travelling in that part of a motor vehicle not designed and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers?

               2.

               If the answer to Question (1) is in the positive, does Article 1 of the Third Directive confer rights on individuals that may be relied upon directly before the national courts?

      (1)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liabilty in respect of the use of motor vehicles, Official Journal L 129, 19/05/1990 P.0033-0035.


title: Case T-320/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 275/50                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
The applicant received a grant from the Commission in 1996                         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
within the framework of a project to create a joint venture                        Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-
with a Polish undertaking. The request for a grant was based                       3);
on application of a regional development plan entitled ‘Joint
Venture PHARE TACIS Program’. Following an investigation                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
carried out in 2002 at the applicant’s premises and an                             Office.
exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the
Commission, the latter, by a missive of 8 July 2003, instructed
the bank acting as financial intermediary for the development
plan to effect full recovery of the funds paid to the applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
It is this notification which constitutes the decision under
challenge by the applicant.                                                  Trade mark concerned:        ‘LIVE RICHLY’ (word) — Appli-
                                                                                cation No. 2112647.
In support of its action, the applicant first invokes an alleged
breach of the provisions of Regulation No 1 (1) inasmuch as                  Products or services:        ‘Financial and monetary services
the contested decision was drafted in English and not in                                                  and real estate affairs; in particu-
French, even though it was addressed to the applicant, which                                              lar: banking; credit card; commer-
is a French company. The applicant also pleads an alleged                                                 cial and consumer lending and
failure to comply with the four-year limitation period laid                                               financing; real estate and mort-
down in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The                                               gage brokerage; trust, estate and
applicant further submits that the contested decision, which                                              fiduciary management, planning
was not signed by the competent Commissioner but by a Head                                                and consulting; investment and
of Unit and an administrator, infringes the principle of                                                  investment advisory and con-
collegiate responsibility and originates from an authority                                                sulting; securities brokerage and
lacking competence.                                                                                trading services facilitating secure
                                                                                financial transactions, insurance
                                                                                services; in particular, underwrit-
The applicant contends further that the contested decision is                                             ing and sales of property, casualty
vitiated by a substantive inaccuracy as to the facts, lacks any                                           and life insurance policies and
legal basis, fails to satisfy the obligation to state reasons, and                                        annuity contracts’ (Class 36)
infringes the principles of proportionality and audi alteram
partem and the right to due process.                                         Challenged       Decision    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                             before the Board of          examiner
                                                                             Appeal:
(1) Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be
    used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special              Pleas in law:                Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and
    Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).                                                                            73, first and second sentences, of
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
    1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
    interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, pp. 1 to 4).
                                                                             Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against                      and Others against European Parliament and Council of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                           the European Union
                          (Case T-320/03)                                                            (Case T-321/03)
                          (2003/C 275/84)                                                            (2003/C 275/85)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 the European Union was brought before the Court of First
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp,                       Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244
New York (USA), represented by Dr V. von Bomhard,                            other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Ram-
Dr A. Pohlmann and Dr. A. Renck, lawyers.                                    pal, avocats.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2000 in Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Customs agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
9.9.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 259/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                at Poperinge (Belgium), Noël Boone SPRL, established at
                                                                           Herseaux (Belgium), J. Grayet et G. Heidner SPRL, established
                           of 27 June 2000                                 at Welkenraedt (Belgium), Straps SA, established at Chaudfon-
                                                                           taine (Belgium), Ziegler SA, established in Brussels, Maison
                                                                           Parent SCRL, established at Hertain (Belgium), Magemon
in Case T-608/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the                            SA, established at Liège (Belgium), Garsou-Augenot SPRL,
                    European Communities (1)                               established at Verviers (Belgium), and Somimpex SPRL, estab-
                                                                           lished at Mouscron (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaile and
(Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Confirma-               K. Tanghe, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                     tory act — Inadmissibility)                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                           M.C. Giorgi and G. Houttuin) and Commission of the Euro-
                           (2000/C 259/36)
                                                                           pean Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications for
                                                                           compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
                                                                           cants as a result of the establishment, with effect from
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
                                                                           Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of
In Case T-608/97: Onno Plug, a former member of the                        the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-                 agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
ties, residing at Thônex (Switzerland), represented by G. Van-             First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
dersanden and L. Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion                 made an order on 16 June 2000, the operative part of which
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v Commission of the European                is as follows:
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s                1.    Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97 are joined for
letter of 14 January 1997 and, in so far may be necessary, of                    the purposes of the further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
the decision of 12 September 1997 rejecting the complaint of
16 April 1997 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),               2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on               3.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
27 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                         the Council.
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                            4.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.
2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 15 June 2000
                           of 16 June 2000                                 in Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and Others v
                                                                           Council of the European Union and Commission of the
in Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97:                                            European Communities (1)
Transfluvia NV and Others v Council of the European
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
                                                                                toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
      toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                                               (2000/C 259/38)
                           (2000/C 259/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
              (Languages of the case: French and Dutch)                    In Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA, established in
                                                                           Barcelona (Spain), and 115 others, represented by S. Muñoz
In Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97: Transflu-               Machado, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
via NV, established at Menen (Belgium), Wybo NV, established               Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, v
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
Council of the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi, G. Hout-               1.   Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98 are joined for the purposes of the
tuin and G.-L. Ramos Ruano) and Commission of the European                      further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants,                2.   The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
consisting of the costs of restructuring or liquidating their
businesses, which were incurred as a result of the establish-              3.   The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
ment, with effect from 1 January 1993, of the internal market                   the Council.
in accordance with the Single European Act, and of the
consequent discontinuance of the activities which they had                 4.   The Commission is to bear its own costs.
hitherto carried on as customs agents in the field of intra-
Community trade — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi                (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
15 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
2.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
      the Council.
3.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                                            of 14 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacita-
                                                                               dos v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Refusal to initiate infringement proceedings — Action for
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 annulment — Inadmissibility)
                         of 26 June 2000                                                             (2000/C 259/40)
in Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Case T-334/99: Organización Impulsora de Discapacitados,
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-                    established in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez,
     toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                      of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the Chambers of Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard
                         (2000/C 259/39)                                   de la Pétrusse, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes Real) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        19 October 1999 not to institute proceedings against the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain for a declaration of infringement of
In Joined Cases T-12/98 and T-13/98: Argon srl, established                Community law — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Brescia (Italy), and 21 others, and Carlo Chiappe, residing at          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
Leghorn (Italy), and 11 others, represented by G. Leone, of the            N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Milan Bar, and M. Clough, solicitor advocate, with an address              14 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
398 Route d’Esch, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
M.C. Giorgi, G. Houttuin and P. Cossu) and Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications               2.   There is no need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to
for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the                       intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and the United
applicants as a result of the establishment, with effect from                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of               3.   The applicant is to pay the costs.
the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 26 June 2000, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case T-12/12: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol — Letter informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to refuse authorisation — Application for a declaration of failure to act — Definition of position by the Commission — Inadmissibility — Application for annulment — Adoption of a new decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/18

         Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-12/12) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol - Letter informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to refuse authorisation - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission - Inadmissibility - Application for annulment - Adoption of a new decision - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 243/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and H. Walker, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a final decision in relation to the applicant’s application for a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 5 December 2011, not to grant that authorisation to the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for a declaration of failure to act as inadmissible;

               2.

               Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment submitted in the alternative;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case T-137/16: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (Action for annulment — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Party not represented by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Order of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA
   (Case T-137/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Party not represented by a lawyer - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 269/22)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: D. Dubis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Le Berre and G. Materna, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, seeking the annulment of the decisions of the REA, acting under powers delegated by the European Commission, terminating the Cossar grant agreement (No 252908) and requiring the applicant to repay the sums of EUR 36 508,37, EUR 58 031,38 and EUR 6 286,68 as well as to pay damages in the amount of EUR 5 803,14, and, secondly, seeking reimbursement by the REA of the corresponding sums plus interest calculated from the day of payment until the day of reimbursement.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action in Case T-137/16 is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The Uniwersytet Wrocławski shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Research Executive Agency (REA).

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-473/13: Order of the General Court of 24 February 2015 — G-Star Raw v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the application to register the disputed mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/50

         Order of the General Court of 24 February 2015 — G-Star Raw v OHIM
   (Case T-473/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the application to register the disputed mark - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 138/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: J. van Manen, M. van de Braak and L. Fresco, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2013 (Case R 1586/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between G-Star Raw CV and PepsiCo, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are to bear their own costs and are each ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-146/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96             I EN |                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 197/9
Action brought on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                           turnover taxes ( 1 ), to be interpreted as including the services
                                     Germany                                   of an arbitrator ?
                            ( Case C- 1 3 9/96 )
                                ( 96/C 197/ 15                                 (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 Fl , p . 54 .
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                              Action brought on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                                                      Germany
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-146/96)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/17 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with                    Communities on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
       Directives       93/48/EEC ( 1 ),           93/49/EEC (2 )    and       European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
       93/61 /EEC ( 3 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has                   Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
       under those Directives;                                                  Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                       1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
in Case C-135/96 (4 ); the time-limit for transposition                               adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 expired in each case on 31 December 1993 .                                           Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the
                                                                                control of potato ring rot { 1 ), the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 H     OJ  No L 250 , 7 . 10 .    1993 , p .  1.                                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 (2 )  OJ  No L 250 , 7. 10 .      1993 , p . 9.
 (3 )  OJ  No L 250,  7 . 10 .     1993 , p . 19 .                              2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 (4)   OJ  No C 180 ,  22 . 6 .    1996 , p . 23 .
                                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                                in Case C-135/96 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                                expired on 15 November 1993 .
                                                                                i 1 ) OJ No L 259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                ( 2 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996, p . 23 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
 Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 15 March 1996 in
      the case of Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier
                              ( Case C-145 /96 )
                                  ( 96/C 197/ 16
                                                                                Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                       Communities
  European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                                                    (Case C-147/96)
  ( Finance Court) Rheinland-Pfalz (Third Senate ) of
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/18 )
  15 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
  on 3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd
  von Hoffmann v . Finanzamt Trier on the following                              An action against the Commission of the European
  question :                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of
  Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Title VI ( third group : ' services of             the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and J. S. van
  consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers,                          den Oosterkamp, acting as agents .
  accountants and other similar services, as well as data
  processing and the supplying of information') of the Sixth                     The applicant claims that the Court should declare void the
   Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             Commission's decision communicated in its letter of


title: Case T-573/10: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Octapharma Pharmazeutika v EMA (Medicinal products for human use — Changes to a plasma master file (PMF) — Fees payable to the EMA — Act with adverse effects — Measure merely confirmatory — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/17

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2012 — Octapharma Pharmazeutika v EMA
   (Case T-573/10) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Changes to a plasma master file (PMF) - Fees payable to the EMA - Act with adverse effects - Measure merely confirmatory - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 126/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Octapharma Pharmazeutika Produktionsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Brinker and T. Holzmüller, lawyers, and J. Schwarze, Professor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore, acting as Agent, and H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the letter of 21 October 2010 (EMA/643425/2010) by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) refused to repay to the applicant the sum of EUR 180 700 corresponding to the difference between, on the one hand, the sum the applicant paid to it in respect of fees for the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and, on the other hand, the sum which the applicant maintains it should have paid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Octapharma Pharmazeutika Produktionsgesellschaft mbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.