title: Case T-99/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Phildar v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (FILDOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FILDOR — Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR — Earlier national word mark FILDOR — Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/54

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Phildar v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (FILDOR)
   (Case T-99/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FILDOR - Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR - Earlier national word mark FILDOR - Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/91
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Phildar SA (Roubaix, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercial Jacinto Parera SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case F-28/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — BC v Council

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — BC v Council
   (Case F-28/11) (1)

   2011/C 252/135
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011, p. 16.


title: Case C-129/00: Action brought on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/19
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be         Such conduct clearly conflicts with Community law, as
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to           interpreted by the Court of Justice, and specifically
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz, (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl. No.
11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a                     (a) with the principles of effectiveness and judicial protection
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                    of rights recognised by Community law;
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by          (b) with the prohibition of making the exercise of rights
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                    conferred by Community law excessively difficult;
case?
                                                                        (c) with the prohibition of rules of evidence which place on
                                                                             the taxpayer the onus of proving that the taxes unduly
                                                                             paid have not been passed on to others.
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-129/00)
                         (2000/C 163/34)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Court of Justice on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of the               Action brought on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of
European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Adviser, Acting as Agent, with an address for service in                                           of Germany
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (Case C-130/00)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
(a) Declare that, by keeping in force the second paragraph of                                    (2000/C 163/35)
     Article 29 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 which, as
     interpreted and applied by the administrative and judicial
     authorities, lays down rules of evidence in relation to the        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     passing on of taxes levied in breach of Community                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     provisions which in practice make exercise of the right to         ties on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of the European
     reimbursement of such taxes impossible or in any event             Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer of the
     excessively difficult for the taxpayer and as such are             Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
     incompatible with the legal principle laid down by the             ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     Court of Justice regarding the recovery of sums paid but           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 Kirchberg,
     not due, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC         Luxembourg.
     Treaty;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the
                                                                             Commission the necessary measures to implement into
The Commission considers that the specific way in which the                  domestic law European Parliament and Council Directive
Italian provision is interpreted by the Italian judiciary and in             97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
particular the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ultimately places                 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the
on the taxpayer the burden of proving that he did not pass on                coordination of proposals for the award of public service
to his customers the amount of the unlawful tax, making it                   contracts, public supply contracts and public works con-
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure reimbursement              tracts respectively within the prescribed period the Federal
of the taxes. The Italian Administration has systematically,                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
since the entry into force of Law No 428/90, opposed any                     under the EC Treaty and that directive.
application for reimbursement based on the illegality, under
Community law, of the levy or other charges made in
connection with customs operations or consumer taxes.                   2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-68/05 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/22

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-68/05 P)
   (2005/C 82/45)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02, Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. v Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A., represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, advocates.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested judgment;

               —

               Determine the dispute itself by setting aside the contested decision;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

         and order the Commission to pay the costs, at both first instance and on appeal.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   First plea
   Infringement of Community law by virtue of the fact that the Court of First Instance held that the levy on non-exported C-sugar is not an import or export duty for the purposes of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79.
   Second alternative plea
   The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy on non-exported C-sugar must indeed be treated as an import duty for the purposes of Regulation No 1430/79.
   That plea is subdivided into the following limbs:

               A.

               The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy on non-exported C-sugar must be regarded as a customs duty because it pursues the same objective as a customs duty.

               B.

               The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the manner of establishing the level of the levy on non-exported C-sugar indicates that the levy must be regarded as a customs duty.

               C.

               The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the manner of establishing the amount to be levied on non-exported C-sugar indicates that the levy must be regarded as a customs duty.

         Third alternative plea
   In dealing with the second and third pleas put forward in the alternative by Cosun in its application, the Court of First Instance acted in breach of Community law.
   That plea may be subdivided as follows:

               A.

               In dealing with the second and third pleas put forward in the alternative by Cosun in its application, the Court of First Instance exceeded the bounds of the dispute.

               B.

               The Court of First Instance unlawfully failed to deal with the third plea put forward by Cosun in its application.

         Fourth alternative plea
   Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and proportionality.


title: Case C-301/00 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 273/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.9.2000
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of the European                   European Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer
Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its                and the Commission of the European Communities was
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a                   ties on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer represented by Jean-
member of the same service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Dominique des Arcis, Advocate, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    the Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court should:
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to implement within the pre-
      scribed period the laws, regulations and administrative             —     uphold his appeal against the judgment handed down
      provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply                  and dated and declare it to be well founded;
      with Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998
      amending Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of                 —     overturn that judgment, annul it and determine the
      training for the seafarers (1), the Luxembourg Government                 matter anew as the first instance court should have done;
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
      that directive;                                                     —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                                pay the costs including those incurred before the Court
2.    Order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                         of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
By reason of the mandatory nature of the provisions in Articles           —     Procedural defect:
1(10) and 226(3) EC, the Member States are required to take
the necessary measures to transpose directives into domestic                    The judgment delivered does not contain the slightest
law before expiry of the period prescribed for. The period,                     mention of the wholly irregular manner in which the
which is laid down in Article 2(1), of the directive expired on                 procedure was conducted or of the Commission’s unac-
25 May 1999 without the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg                               ceptable conduct in, after having denied all knowledge of
having adopted the necessary measures.                                          the contested drafts, submitting 20 voluminous docu-
                                                                                ments at the last minute. By its refusal to examine all
(1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.                                               aspects of this case, and to collect all the existing
                                                                                documentation before giving its decision, the Court of
                                                                                First Instance manifestly deprived the appellant of his
                                                                                right to defend himself and of legal certainty. The
                                                                                judgment handed down also infringes the principle of the
                                                                                right to a hearing because the Court of First Instance
                                                                                manifestly failed to comply with its obligation of strict
Appeal brought on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer against                           impartiality.
the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    —     Confused, biased and contradictory reasoning.
Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer and the
         Commission of the European Communities                           —     Infringement of general principles of law (the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations, the prohibition on retro-
                        (Case C-301/00 P)                                       actively withdrawing or deferring acts which confer rights
                                                                                or benefits on individuals, the rights of the defence and
                         (2000/C 273/16)                                        the right to legal certainty).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by               —     Infringement of higher rules on fundamental rights
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         protecting individuals.


title: Case T-89/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Clarke and Others v EUIPO (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition — Implementation of the termination clause — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Duty of care — Legitimate expectation)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Clarke and Others v EUIPO
   (Case T-89/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition - Implementation of the termination clause - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Duty of care - Legitimate expectation))
   (2017/C 256/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain), Sigrid Dickmanns, (Gran Alacant, Spain) and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015, Clarke and Others v OHIM (F-101/14 to F-103/14, EU:F:2015:151) and asking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case C-362/06P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/13

         Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-362/06P)
   (2006/C 261/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Appellants: Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry, MTK:n säätiö (represented by K. Marttinen, asianajaja)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 dismissing the appellants' application as inadmissible;

               —

               declare the application in Case T-150/05 admissible;

               —

               give judgment in the case and grant the principal and alternative forms of order sought by the parties who were applicants before the Court of First Instance and thus allow the application in Case T-150/05 in full;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and in the proceedings now before the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance considered that the contested Commission Decision 2005/101/EC (1) was not of direct concern to the applicants within the meaning of Article 230 EC. The decision dismissing the application as inadmissible is wrong in law and should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

                  Direct effects on legal position

               The Court misinterpreted Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) by considering that the Commission's Decision had no direct legal effects on the applicants. The appellants consider, however, that the decision directly affects their legal position because it

                           (i)

                           definitively determines a site's conservation area status;

                           (ii)

                           prohibits landowners from allowing their property to deteriorate;

                           (iii)

                           lays down a requirement that plans or projects be assessed.

               2.

                  Automatic direct effects

               The Court misinterpreted Article 6 by taking the view that for the Commission's decision to have legal effects measures of the Member State are required, and these are discretionary. In the appellants' view, parts of the Commission's decision have legal effects, however, for instance the prohibition on allowing property to deteriorate and the requirement that plans and projects be assessed, which take effect automatically without implementing measures on the part of the Member State.

               3.

                  Lack of effective legal remedies

               In European Community law the principle of audi alteram partem applies in administrative and judicial proceedings. Under that principle the parties must in practice have a right of appeal or other effective legal remedy against decisions. If the right to bring an action is denied to them, the appellants at no stage in these proceedings have a possibility of challenging the authorities' decision by which their land was included in the Natura 2000 network and restrictions were imposed in the form of the prohibition on allowing land to deteriorate and the requirement to submit to an assessment. It was a decision by which the Natura 2000 status of the sites was definitively decided.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-202/15: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/59

         Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
   (Case T-202/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark WORLD OF BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 038/79)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1899/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-360/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/8

         Action brought on 8 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-360/11)
   2011/C 282/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to:

                           —

                           Medicinal substances which may be used habitually or are suited to the production of medicinal products, in accordance with paragraph 1(5) of the first section of Article 91 and paragraph 1(3) of the second section of Article 91 of the Ley española del IVA (Spanish Law on VAT);

                           —

                           Sanitary products, material, equipment and appliances which, viewed objectively, can be used only to prevent, diagnose, treat, alleviate or cure human or animal illnesses or ailments, but which are not ‘normally intended to alleviate or treat disabilities, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled’, in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of the first section of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT;

                           —

                           Aids and equipment which may be used essentially or primarily to treat physical disabilities in animals, in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT;

                           —

                           Aids and equipment essentially and primarily used to treat human disabilities, but which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of ‘the disabled’; the common understanding of this term is to be assumed, that is as being different from and more restrictive than the term ‘the sick’, in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 1(6) of the first section of Article 91 of the Spanish Law on VAT,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the system of reduced rates laid down in paragraph 1(5) and (6) of the first section of Article 91 and paragraph 1(3) of the second section of the Spanish Law on VAT goes beyond what is authorised by the VAT Directive, since it surpasses the possibilities granted to the Member States in categories 3 and 4 of Annex III to that directive. The interpretation of the Spanish authorities is at odds with the wording and general scheme of the directive and is not in line with the case-law, pursuant to which exceptions to the general rules of the common VAT system must be interpreted strictly.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-389/09: Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Labate v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/30

         Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Labate v Commission
   (Case T-389/09)
   2009/C 312/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kay Labate (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: I. Forrester, QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               find that there has been a failure to act on the part of the Commission within the meaning of Article 232 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to take the measure necessary to comply with Tribunal’s order;

               —

               accord to the present action appropriate priority, so as to avoid burdening the file with a separate request for expedited treatment and to render judgment within six weeks;

               —

               order such other or further remedies as justice may require;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 20 February 2009, the applicant made a formal request for the purpose of Article 232 EC that the Commission take a decision recognising the occupational nature of her late husband’s lung cancer for the purpose of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Joint Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.
   In the absence of any such decision or any adoption of position within the required time-limit, the applicant requests that the Court find that the Commission, by failing to take a decision within a reasonable time on her husband’s occupational disease recognition request, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and Article 23 of the Joint Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease and is therefore liable for failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.


title: Case C-449/09: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria OOD (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Right of the proprietor of a mark to oppose the first placing into circulation within the EEA, without his consent, of goods bearing that mark)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/2

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria OOD
   (Case C-449/09) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Right of the proprietor of a mark to oppose the first placing into circulation within the EEA, without his consent, of goods bearing that mark)
   2011/C 89/02
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

      Defendant: IPN Bulgaria OOD

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sofiyski gradski sad — Interpretation of Article 5, in conjunction with Article 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Parallel imports of original goods without the consent of the proprietor of the right conferred by the mark — Possibility for that proprietor to prevent the use in the course of trade, without his consent, of a sign identical to the mark — Proprietor’s right not exhausted

      Operative part of the order

   Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor may oppose the first placing into circulation in the course of trade in the European Economic Area, without his consent, of original goods bearing that mark.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-783/14: Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/40

      Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission
      (Case T-783/14)
      (2015/C 073/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  annul the contested act; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to adjust the minimum import price for imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission violated Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 597/2009 (2) by adjusting the minimum import price without assessing whether the adjusted minimum import price was adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-141/03: Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/52/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-141/03: Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/52/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2004/C 228/24)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-141/03 — application under Article 226 EC for a declaration of failure to act, lodged on 28 March 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Flett and P. Hellström) against Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
   The Kingdom of Sweden is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-1/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and Others (Common organization of the market - Sugar quotas - Transfers between undertakings)

text:
No C 268/6              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                                             ( Fifth Chamber)
    provisions necessary to comply with the requirements
    arising under Council Directive 88/29S/EEC of                                             of 11 August 1995
    22 March 1 988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating               in Case C-l /94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    to the coordination of procedures on the award of                  Consiglio di Stato ): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA
    public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions           and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and
    of Directive 80/767/EEC and under Council Directive                                              Others (M
    89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 amending Directive                      (Common organization of the market — Sugar quotas —
    71 /305/EEC concerning coordination ofprocedures for                               Transfers between undertakings)
    the award of public works contracts, the Federal
    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      ( 95/C 268/12 )
    under the EC Treaty;
2 , orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
    costs .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
H OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-l /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato (Council ofState)
                                                                       ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                       before that court between Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    SpA and Others and Ministero deH'Agricoltura e delle
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                              Foreste and Others — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                       common organization of the markets in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                         No L 177, p. 4 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 193/82 of
            Communities v. Muireann Noonan ( x )                       26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of
(Appeal — Official — Admissibility ofan action challenging             quotas in the sugar sector ( OJ No L 21 , p. 3 ) — the Court
a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid           ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is                the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
                              contested)                               Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
                           ( 95/C 268/ 11 )                            H. A. Rùhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       I . Member States may not, for the marketing year starting
In Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                               on 1 July, exercise the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on
Communities ( agent: John Forman ) — appeal against the                      them by Article 25 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of 16 September 1993 in                       organization of the markets in the sugar sector after the
Case T-60/92 Muireann Noonan v. Commission [ 1993 ]                          date of 1 March laid down by Council Regulation (EEC)
ECR 11-911 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general
other party to the proceedings being: Muireann Noonan,                       rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector, even if
represented by James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, with an                       the Council Regulation fixing the quotas and stating
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                          that power to be applicable has been adopted after
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener the Court ( Fifth                      1 March, since no Community legislation expressly
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                            derogating from that time limit has been enacted;
( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                        2 , the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on Member States by
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a                  Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 may be
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                    exercised at the same time as an adjustment of quotas
                                                                             pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 193/82
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                    following a transfer of undertakings or factories,
                                                                             provided that the specific conditions governing the
                                                                             application of each of those provisions are complied
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                  with;
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       3 . Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that Member States may reduce
                                                                             the A quota and the B quota by 10% each;
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/7
4 , the 1 0 % margin of manoeuvre provided for in the first            costs arising from the performance by the customs and
     subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC)                veterinary services of their tasks as providers of services in
     No 1 785/81 relates to the A and B quotas allocated to an         the public interest even if it has not been imposed by the
     undertaking, within the framework of the quota system             State but arises from an agreement concluded by that
     in force, by a national decision taken by the Member              undertaking with its customers.
     State on the basis of Article 24 of that Regulation,
     sharing out among the undertakings operating in its
     territory the basic A and B quantities allocated to it;           (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
5 , the term 'restructuring plans ' within the meaning of the
     second subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation
     (EEC) No 1785/81 , allowing quotas to be adjusted in
     Italy without the 10% limit applying, refers to plans
     concerning the sugar sector as a whole at national or
     regional level.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
                                                                       in Case C-43/94 P: European Parliament v. Philippe
                                                                                Vienne H
                                                                       (Officiai — Daily subsistence allowance — Cumulative
                                                                                benefits)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/14 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                        of 11 August 1995
in Case C- 1 6/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
French Cour de Cassation ): Édouard Dubois et Fils SA and               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                SA (M
 (Transit charge payable under a private contract — Charge
                     having équivalent effect)                         In Case C-43/94 P : European Parliament ( agent: Ezio
                           ( 95/C 268/13 )                             Perillo ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        of 30 November 1993 in Case T-15/93 Vienne v . European
                                                                        Parliament [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1327, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: French)                          judgment set aside — the other party to the proceedings
                                                                        being: Philippe Vienne, an official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Luxembourg at the office of SARL Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue
                                                                        Glesener — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P.
                                                                       Jann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
 In Case C- 1 6/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        Edward and L. Sévon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
 the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court of             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August
 Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1995 , in which it:
 pending before that court between Édouard Dubois et Fils
 SA and Général Cargo Services SA and Garonor
 Exploitation SA — on the interpretation of Articles 9,12,13             1 , dismisses the appeal;
 and 16 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.
 Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                       2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
 (Rapporteur) and L. Sévon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, for the Registrar, has
 given a judgment on 11 August 1995, in which it rules:              , (!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
 Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty apply to a transit charge
 designed to compensate a private undertaking for bearing


title: Case T-250/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/41

         Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission
   (Case T-250/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by G. Belotti)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               rule on the merits of the proceedings at first instance, upholding all the claims made by the appellant in that application, including the claim for damages which it is for this Court to quantify in a fair manner;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in both cases.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016, which dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action seeking essentially, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) not to consider further the appellant’s application for the position of head of the ‘Legal Advice’ unit and, second, the claim for the payment of damages by the European Commission stemming from, in the appellant’s opinion, loss of chance of being selected to occupy that post.
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging certain defects in the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, adversely affecting the appellant’s interests.

                           —

                           The appellant claims in particular, in that respect, that there are no arguments in the order under appeal relating to the alleged manifestly unfounded nature of the action.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging substantial inaccuracy of the factual findings when viewed in the light of the documents in the case.

                           —

                           The appellant claims, in particular, in that respect, that the candidate selected for the post at issue lacked experience and the requirements of balanced geographical representation and equality of merits were incorrectly assessed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law, resulting from the failure to apply, during the pre-selection stage, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality and that of non-discrimination on the ground of language.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the incorrect legal characterisation of the facts

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the incorrect ‘legal characterisation’ of the applicant’s plea in law requesting the Civil Service Tribunal to extend the effects of the annulment of the decision under appeal and thereby declare the selection procedure at issue invalid from the point at which the ‘unlawful act established’ occurred.


title: Case C-115/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2009 — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2009 — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg
   (Case C-115/09)
   2009/C 141/46
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

      Defendant: Bezirksregierung Arnsberg

      Intervener: Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen GmbH &Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC (2) require that non-governmental organisations seeking access to the courts of a Member State in which administrative procedural law requires an applicant to maintain the impairment of a right may maintain the impairment of all environmental provisions relevant to the approval of a project, that is, also such provisions which are intended to serve the interests of the general public alone and not, at least in addition, to protect the legal interests of individuals?

               2.

               In the case that Question 1 is not answered unreservedly in the affirmative:
               Does Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC require that non-governmental organisations seeking access to the courts of a Member State in which administrative procedural law requires an applicant to maintain the impairment of a right may maintain the impairment of such environmental provisions relevant to the approval of a project which derive directly from Community law or transpose Community environmental legislation into domestic law, that is, also such provisions which are intended to serve the interests of the general public alone and not, at least in addition, to protect the legal interests of individuals?

                           (a)

                           In the case that Question 2 is answered, in principle, in the affirmative:
                           Must provisions of Community environmental legislation satisfy specific material requirements to be capable of forming the basis for a challenge?

                           (b)

                           In the case that Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative:
                           What are the material requirements (for example, direct effect, protective purpose or objective) concerned?

               3.

               In the case that Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Are non-governmental organisations entitled directly on the basis of the directive to such right of access to the courts which exceeds provision made under national law?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 pp 40-48).

      (2)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — explanation of the Commission (OJ L156, 25.6.2003 pp 17-25).


title: Action brought on 10 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic against the European Commission (Case C-159/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 233 / 3
     — the principle that there must be a balance between                 argument put forward by the Luxembourg authorities, the
         the rights and obligations of the parties : in addition          sending of commercial samples free of charge does in fact
         to the concessions embodied in the ATC conditions,               constitute an operation covered by the Sixth Directive , in
         the Community has made a significant number of                   respect of which Article 5 ( 6 ) of that Directive lays down
         additional concessions in exchange for the measures              special arrangements consisting in an exemption
         for opening up the Indian and Pakistani markets                  accompanied by a refund of the input tax paid by the trader
         incorporated in the Memoranda of Understanding.                  concerned . Moreover, the position adopted by Luxembourg
         Furthermore , the measures for opening up those                  is inconsistent, inasmuch as it subjects to VAT imports of
         markets are extremely uncertain and liable to be                 commercial samples provided free of charge whilst enabling
         reversed .                                                       the tax thus paid to be deducted by taxable persons in
                                                                          Luxembourg .
(')  Not yet published in the Official Journal .
(2)  OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 50 .
(■') OJ No L 275 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                         (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(4)  OJ No L 86 , 1995 , p . 10 .
Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                           Action brought on 10 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic
                             Luxembourg                                                 against the European Commission
                          ( Case C-152/96 )
                                                                                ( Case C-159/96 )
                            ( 96/C 233 /03 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/04 )
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       An action against the European Commission was brought
Communities on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the                        before the Court of Justice on 10 May 1996 by the
European Communities, represented by Hélène Michard                       Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Luis Fernandes and
and Enrico Traversa , acting as Agents , with an address for              Maria Lui'sa Duarte , acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée
Cruz , of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg .                  Scheffer .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
( a ) declare that, by introducing and applying national rules
      operating in such a way that supplies of samples such as            — declare void the Commission's practice of applying
      specimen discs or books, which are exempt for                           ' exceptional flexibility' measures in connection with the
      domestic       transactions    and     in  the    context   of
                                                                              administration of quantitative limits on the import by
      intra-Community supplies under Articles 5 ( 6 ) and                     the European Community of textile products and
      28c ( B ) ( a ) respectively of the Sixth Council VAT                   clothing from non-member countries and, specifically,
      Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                          the decision adopted by the Commission following the
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States
                                                                              meeting of the Textile Committee of 6 March 1996 on
      relating to turnover taxes — common system of value                     textile products from the People's Republic of China ,
      added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( 1 ), as amended ,
      cannot qualify for deduction of input value added tax,
      and by making imports of those goods subject to VAT,                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      contrary to the provisions of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the
      Sixth VAT Directive , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive;
( b ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                      — Manifest abuse by the Commission of its powers for the
      costs .                                                                 implementation of international agreements on trade in
                                                                              textile products and clothing : the ' exceptional flexiblity'
                                                                              measures, applied after full use has been made of all the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           mechanisms provided for in the Community legislation
                                                                              and the bilateral agreements between the European
Infringement of the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive                     Community and supplier countries for flexible
( 77/388/EEC ) referred to in the claims : contrary to the                    observance of quantitative limits, cannot be regarded as
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 8 . 96
     falling within the Commission's management powers,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
     defined by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on             Eerste Aanleg, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
     common rules for imports of certain textile products             13 May 1996 in the case of ( a ) Belgian State v. 1 . Banque
     from third countries ('). Several provisions of that            Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH and 3 . NV Rijn
     Regulation preclude such exercise of discretion by the          and Kanaalvaart Expeditie and ( b ) Belgian State v.
     Commission which , moreover, is contrary to the specific                              European Commumty
     scope and nature of management powers .                                                  ( Case C-177/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/05 )
     The allowing of 'exceptional flexibility' measures is also
     contrary to the objective of rigorous and transparent           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     management of the quantitative limits underlying the            European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
     system introduced by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 .            van Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp, of
    The 'exceptional flexibility' measures made available for        13 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    textile products from China on 6 March 1996 by far               22 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( a )
    exceeded the limits laid down for normal flexibility             Belgian State v . 1 . Banque Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz
    measures and undeniably ran counter to the Council's             GmbH and 3 . Rijn- and Kanaalvaart Expeditie NV and ( b )
    decision to reduce the rate of annual growth of the              Belgian State v. European Community, on the following
    quantitative limits applicable to China, as is apparent          questions :
    from the Agreement renegotiated in 1 995 ; consequently,
    those measures have no basis in the bilateral agreement
    and even depart from the spirit and letter of the                1 . Does the name 'Yugoslavia ' in Commission Decision
    provisions thereof. Recourse to 'exceptional flexibility'            No 2131 /88/ECSC (') also refer to the State of
    measures also involves a clear breach of the general and             Macedonia-Scopje after it had broken away from ( what
    fundamental principles of the Community legal order,                 remained of) Yugoslavia ?
    which have been recognized as such by the Community
    case law .                                                       2 . Are the import duties which are to be levied in
                                                                         accordance      with      Decision  No  2131 /88/ECSC      on
                                                                         imports into the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union
— Manifest breach of the general Community legal                         of steel products originating in Yugoslavia also
    principles concerning competence, institutional                      applicable to such imports originating in the State of
    equilibrium and protection of the legitimate                         Macedonia-Scopje between 1 May 1992 and 31 July
    expectations of economic agents in the Community : as                1992 inclusive ?
    an authority giving effect to the commercial agreements
    entered into by the Council , the Commission must limit          (') OJ No L 188 , 1988 , p . 14 .
    its action to applying agreed provisions . Any decision
    which goes beyond such limits, such as that represented
    by the 'exceptional flexibility' measures, breaches the
    principle of legally defined competence — and is
    consequently illegal through lack of powers . The
    Commission is also acting in breach of the principle of
    institutional equilibrium in adopting decisions which, as
    regards their legal effects, constitute a derogation from
    the provisions whose approval, at Community level , or          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
    conclusion, at international level, is a matter for the         Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the
    Council alone .                                                 case of 1 . Beside B V and 2 . 1 . M. Besselsen v. Minister for
                                                                     Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation
                                                                                ( Case C-192/96 )
    The practice of taking 'exceptional flexibility' measures                                   ( 96/C 233/06 )
    represents a factor of unpredictability as regards the
    reasonable expectations of economic agents, in
    particular those in the textile industry; since such            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    measures cannot be foreseen by economic agents and do           European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
    not pursue an overriding public interest, they contravene       Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
    the principle of legitimate expectations and are, for that      31 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    reason among others, illegal .                                  4 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Beside
                                                                    BV and 2 . I. M. Besselsen v . Minister for Housing, Town
                                                                    and Country Planning and Conservation on the following
(') OJ No L 2 75 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                   questions :
                                                                     1 . Should the expression 'municipal/household waste '
                                                                         referred to under AD 160 in Annex III to Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                         supervision 'and control of shipments of waste within,


title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Francisco Fernandez Ruiz against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-31/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 131 /21
had 12 years and several days' specific professional                  Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Deborah Gabriel
experience, he should have been classed in Grade A 5 in                  against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with Article 2, second paragraph, of the                                             ( Case T-32/97)
Commission's decision of 1 September 1983 , in the
appropriate step.                                                                                ( 97/C 131/50 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of his application he argues, alternatively, that
the decision was unlawful in so far as it states that
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Article 2, first paragraph, thereof applies to members of             Communities was brought before the Court of First
the temporary staff recruited under Article 2 ( a ) of the            Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
Regulations applicable to Other Servants; that it fails to            1997 by Deborah Gabriel, residing in Brussels, represented
fulfil the obligation to state reasons; that it infringes             by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations; and that the               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                      Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Francisco                           consideration to the possible application of
Fernandez Ruiz against the Commission of the European                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                           Communities
                         (Case T-31/97)                               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                          ( 97/C 131 /49 )                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                (Language of the case: French)                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                      Case T-16/97 O.
1997 by Francisco Fernandez Ruiz, residing in Waterloo
( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Luc Jacobs
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                        against the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                               (Case T-33/97)
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     97/C 131/51 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                  (Language of the case: French)
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           1997 by Luc Jacobs, residing in Koekelberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Lux
                                                                      embourg.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 t 1 ).                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                           rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                           consideration to the possible application of
                                                                           Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,


title: Case T-253/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark IRAP — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex (IRAP)
   (Case T-253/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark IRAP - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 007/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Orthogen AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Finger and S. Krüger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by D. Walicka and A. Schifko, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Arthrex GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: R. Greiffenberg and O. Stöckel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 382/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Arthrex GmbH and Orthogen AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Orthogen AG to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Arthrex GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-118/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2011 — P.P.TV v OHIM — Rentrak (PPT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PPT — Earlier national figurative mark PPTV — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2011 — P.P.TV v OHIM — Rentrak (PPT)
   (Case T-118/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PPT - Earlier national figurative mark PPTV - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 103/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J.M. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and, subsequently, D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rentrak Corp. (Portland, Oregon, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2007 (Case R 1040/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA and Rentrak Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-449/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/22

         Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)
   (Case T-449/13)
   2013/C 304/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 33/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark in colours green, red and gold, representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal element ‘WISENT’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 5 142 039

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(5) in conjunction with 76(1), 75, 76(1) and (2) CTMR.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-260/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Cestas v Commission (Action for annulment — European Development Fund — Repayment of amounts paid — Debit note — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Cestas v Commission
   (Case T-260/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - European Development Fund - Repayment of amounts paid - Debit note - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 128/65)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Centro di educazione sanitaria e tecnologie appropriate sanitarie (Cestas) (Bologna (Italy) (represented initially by: N. Amadei and C. Turk, and subsequently by N. Amadei and P. Manzini, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and F. Dintilhac, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 21 April 2004 of the Commission (Delegation in the Republic of Guinea), sent to the applicant by registered letter, ordering it to pay the amount of GNF 959 543 (EUR 397 126,02).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the Centro di educazione sanitaria e tecnologie appropriate sanitarie (Cestas) to bear three fifths of its own costs and also to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs and also to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Cestas.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-17/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 April 2006  — Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission (State aid — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Necessity of the aid)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2006 — Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission
   (Case T-17/03) (1)

   (State aid - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Necessity of the aid)
   (2006/C 131/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH (Gotha, Germany) (represented by: M. Matzat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and V. di Bucci, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/194/EC of 30 October 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 41)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003


C 372/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.12.2000
      Removal from the Register of Case T-121/98 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-232/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/35)                                                         (2000/C 372/37)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 29 September 2000, the President of the Second              By order of 6 September 2000, the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case               Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case
                                                                        T-232/99, Margaret McKenzie-Campbell v Commission of the
T-121/98, Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                        European Communities.
of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
     Removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R (1)
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-39/00 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/38)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 11 October 2000, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 27 September 2000, the President of the Fifth
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R,               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
British Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities.             Communities ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-39/00, PlantaVet Vertrieb biologischer Tierarzneimittel
                                                                        GmbH v the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                               Products.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-495/01: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/388/EEC — VAT — Article 11(A)(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to the price — Regulation (EC) No 603/95 — Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-495/01: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Article 11(A)(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to the price - Regulation (EC) No 603/95 - Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)
   (2004/C 228/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-495/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and I. Koskinen) v Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) and by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and A. Falk) — application for a declaration that, by failing to levy value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58 of 2.3.2002.


title: Case F-62/07: Action brought on 20 June 2007 — De Fays v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/53

         Action brought on 20 June 2007 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case F-62/07)
   (2007/C 199/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. -P. Guhuchten and Ph. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 March 2007 dismissing the Applicant's pre-litigation claim for damages;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 25 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant brought a complaint against the Authorising Authority's decision of 15 September 2006 awarding her damages of EUR 500 only as compensation for non-material loss suffered as a result of the drawing up of her Career Development Reports (CDR) for 2003, 2004 and 2005. By the contested decision the Authorising Authority dismissed that complaint.
   In support of her action, the applicant submits that the procedures for drawing up the CDR at issue were late and created a state of uncertainty as to the development of her career. Moreover, the repetition in each of the CDRs of allegedly hurtful and inappropriate content gave rise to non-material damage. The Commission failed to respect the obligations placed on it by the principles of respect for human dignity, sound administration, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and, by analogy, the Community rules applicable to harassment at work (1).

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23); Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37); Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).


title: Case C-407/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/20

         Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-407/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/31
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 December 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21.


11 . 11 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                           No C 299/ 1
                                                                      I
                                                              (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                Swearing of the oath by the new member of the Court of Justice
                                                             ( 95/C 299/01 )
             Mr Melchior Wathelet, appointed on 13 September 1995 judge at the Court of Justice of the
             European Communities by decision of the representatives of the governments of the Member States
             of the European Communities ('), took the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 September
             1995 .
             (') OJ No L 233 , 30 . 9 . 1995 , p . 88 .
             Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                              Communities
                                                             ( 95 /C 299/02 )
             Mr Andre Potocki and Mr Rui Manuel Gens de Moura Ramos, appointed on 17 and 26 July 1995
             judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by decisions of the representatives
             of the governments of the Member States of the European Communities ( 1 ) ( 2 ), took the oath before
             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September 1995 .
             (') OJ No L 172 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 23 .
             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 9 . 8 . 1995 , p . 7 .
                            Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 19 September 1995
                                                              ( 95 /C 299/03 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following decisions at its meeting on
              19 September 1995 :
             Attachment of Mr Wathelet
             The Court has decided to attach Mr Wathelet to the First and Fifth Chambers .