title: Case C-131/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 124/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.5.2003
The Commission cannot but find that the Italian Republic has            The Appellants claim that the Court should:
not yet forwarded to it the above information and has not thus
far designated any Community trade mark court or tribunal,
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
thereby also failing to meet its obligations under Article 91(1)
                                                                              15 January 2003, whereby it:
of that regulation.
                                                                              i)    dismissed the applications as inadmissible;
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                                                                              ii)   ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and,
                                                                                jointly and severally, the costs incurred by the
                                                                                Commission; and
                                                                              iii) ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                        —     declare their applications for annulment admissible on
Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds                              the basis that the contested decisions were manifestly
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-                     illegal and to give final judgment in the matter; alterna-
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            tively;
national Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judg-
ment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                    —     declare their applications for annulment admissible and
Instance of the European Communities in joined cases                          refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01                           judgment on the merits; alternatively;
between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the
national Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                         merits and for judgment accordingly;
of the European Communities, supported by European
Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian
Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Fed-                —     order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to
eral Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of                       Article 69, second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure
                         the Netherlands                                      of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-131/03 P)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2003/C 124/17)
                                                                        The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
                                                                        law in so far as it held that, as a matter of principle, a decision
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003             to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court               decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases           of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and             case 60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissi-
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                 bility where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,            clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                    of application is determined on a case by case basis.
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of           The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,                 it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Communities on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                   Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina            competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
(United States), RJR Acquisition Corp., established in Wilming-         attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
ton, Delaware (United States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Com-               In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
pany, established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United              rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., established in       Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United States) and Japan                 provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by             procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
O.W. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas, solicitor.                          has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/11
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the                      referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                         stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                         95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 ( 3); by failing to adopt
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.                         the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of
                                                                                that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-
                                                                                tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                           amended regulation; and by failing to adopt
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court                         measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism                            as to the method of manufacture or production
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by                        of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                            abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                    with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on                           the European Parliament and of the Council of
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.                                    20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District
                                                                                —     by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.                               contrary to the same provisions, use of the term
                                                                                ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
                                                                                for dairy products in respect of which that term has
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
                                                                                been customarily and continuously used when they
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.03.2001, p. 24.                                                      have not been obtained in accordance with organic
( 3) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 39.                                                       production methods,
( 4) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 45.
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                                particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-135/03)
                         (2003/C 124/18)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo            derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          methods in any of the official languages of the European
Luxembourg.                                                               Community for products which have not been obtained by
                                                                          means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                          term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
—     Declare that:
      —      by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in
             current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
             combination with other terms, for products which             the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
             have not been obtained in accordance with organic            for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
             production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in          with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
             conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
             (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
             production of agricultural products and indications          No 2092/91.


title: Case C-103/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission (Appeal — Access to EU institution documents — Actions in areas interesting developing countries — Refusal to grant access to certain documents of the file concerning contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’ — Execution of a judgment of the General Court)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/2

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
   (Case C-103/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to EU institution documents - Actions in areas interesting developing countries - Refusal to grant access to certain documents of the file concerning contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’ - Execution of a judgment of the General Court))
   (2016/C 136/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-128/13: Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla/OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/21

         Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla/OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ)
   (Case T-128/13)
   2013/C 123/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tesco Stores Ltd (Cheshunt, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims/claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures;

               —

               Annul the Boards of Appeal Decision;

               —

               Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MARQUES DE CHIVÉ’ for goods in classes 29, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 9 571 415

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom registration No 1 520 720 of the word mark ‘MARQUES DE CHIVE’ for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition directed at the application for the goods in class 33 for lack of genuine use

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for the goods in class 33

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-40/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — X AG and Others v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam
   (Case C-40/13)
   2013/C 123/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: X AG, X1 Holding GmbH, X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding BV, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV

      Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does denying the appellants the opportunity to have the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and assets of the sister companies X3 Holding, D1 and D2, established in the Netherlands, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC?
               In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of X3 Holding, D1 and D2 objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which have not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, and which therefore, jointly as sister companies, similarly to the appellants, have no access to the fiscal unity regime, or to (ii) the situation of sister companies, established in the Netherlands, which, together with their common parent company (-ies), established in the Netherlands, have elected to form a fiscal unity with their parent company (-ies) and whose activities and assets therefore, in contrast to those of the appellants, are consolidated for tax purposes?

               2.

               In answering the first sentence of Question 1, does it still make a difference … whether the companies concerned have (i), as in the case of D1 and D2, a common (direct) parent company in the other Member State or (ii), as in the case of, on the one hand, X3 Holding, and, on the other hand, D1 and D2, various (direct) parent companies in the other Member State, with the result that it is only at a higher level — albeit situated in that other Member State — of the group structure that there is a common (indirect) parent company of those various companies?

               3.

               If and to the extent that the first sentence of Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, can such a restriction then be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, more particularly by the need to preserve tax consistency, including the prevention of unilateral and bilateral double use of losses …?

               4.

               If and to the extent that Question 3 must be answered in the affirmative, should such a restriction be considered to be proportionate …?


title: Case F-143/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Continolo v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Continolo v Commission
   (Case F-143/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 211/108)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Donato Continolo (Duino-Aurisina, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, and R. Albelice, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — Annulment of the decision of the Commission on the award and calculation of the applicant's pension rights, to the extent that it does not completely credit the period from 11 June 1981 to 1 March 1983 which he spent on leave on personal grounds
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 41.


title: Case T-242/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — AEPI v Commission (Copyright and related rights — Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Closure of procedure on a complaint submitted by an individual — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — AEPI v Commission
   (Case T-242/05) (1)

   (Copyright and related rights - Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations - Closure of procedure on a complaint submitted by an individual - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 281/63)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias (AEPI AE) (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20 April 2005 not to initiate proceedings against the Greek Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations and an application that a ruling be given on the substance.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.05.


title: Case T-385/10: Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/29

         Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-385/10) (1)

   2011/C 204/53
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-437/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Seminario

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Seminario
   (Case C-437/14)
   (2014/C 448/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Nicola Seminario

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the above judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case T-816/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED — Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Misuse of power — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP METRO (REAL HAND COOKED)
   (Case T-816/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REAL HAND COOKED - Earlier national figurative mark real QUALITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Misuse of power - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 (Case R 842/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Tayto Group Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case C-112/06: Action brought on  24 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/4

         Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-112/06)
   (2006/C 121/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court to:

               (a)

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that:

                           —

                           the waste in the landfill sites of Mesomouri and Kouroupitos in Crete is disposed of without endangering human health or the environment,

                           —

                           the waste in the landfill sites of Mesomouri and Kouroupitos is handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out waste disposal operations,

                           —

                           the landfill site at Mesomouri, which has not been authorised to continue operating, will cease operating as soon as possible, and the necessary procedure of after-care and management will be followed,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2), and Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (3) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

               (b)

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The applicant considers that the disposal of waste at the Mesomouri and Kouroupitos, Crete, sites is taking place in infringement of the Hellenic Republic's obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under Article 14(b) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

               2.

               As regards the uncontrolled disposal of waste at Mesomouri, the conclusions of the report of the Commission's experts showed that the tipping of 90 000 tonnes of waste at the site endangers human health and is likely to harm the environment. In addition, the Commission stresses that the Greek authorities have not taken the measures necessary to ensure that the waste tipped at Mesomouri will be handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out waste disposal operations.
               The Commission adds that the Greek authorities have decided that the Mesomouri site ought to cease operating, finding it essential to restore it and to lay down specific requirements for subsequent after-care and management of the site. Nevertheless, that decision does not include a specific timetable for compliance and has not yet been put into effect on account of lack of resources.

               3.

               As regards the old tip at Kouroupitos, the Commission's experts' report showed that the site has not been restored and stresses the likely risks to human health and the environment. The report refers in particular to the fact that there is: 1. leaching of a large part of the earth cover; 2. insufficient stability and resistance to deterioration; and 3. incineration of the existing waste in the tip, which can lead to toxic emissions. At the same time the Greek authorities have not taken the necessary measures to ensure that the waste at Kouroupitos will be handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out waste disposal operations.

      (1)  OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78 of 26.03.1991, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 182 of 16.07.99, p. 1.


title: Case C-529/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/18

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-529/06)
   (2007/C 42/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.


title: Case C-381/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)
   (Case C-381/15)
   (2015/C 302/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Zamora

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez

      Defendant: Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is a situation where a declaration that a floor clause in a mortgage loan contract is unfair and therefore void takes effect, not from the date of the conclusion of the contract, but from a later date contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               2)

               Does the application of the unfair term for the period of time laid down by the Spanish Tribunal Supremo give rise to unjust enrichment for the professional contractor, not allowed by the Community legislation in so far as it does not restore a balance between the parties and benefits the party to the contract who imposed the financial term held to be unfair?

               3)

               Is the criterion of the risk of severe disruptions to the national economy, to be met for limiting the application and effects of an unfair term, applicable to an individual action brought by a consumer or, on the contrary, in that individual action, does the criterion of risk of serious disruption refer to that caused to the financial position of the consumer as a result of the limitation of the effects of the term declared void to the period specified?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-497/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg by order of 19 December 2001 in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines

text:
C 44/10                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
ensure to a great extent the quality of medical services, so that           Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
specific measures restricting the basic freedoms enshrined in               system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1)
the Treaty should be exceptional and fully justified by special             to be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of a totality
circumstances. As for monitoring in particular, there is nothing            of assets to a taxable person constitutes a sufficient
to prevent laboratories established in other Member States                  condition for the transaction not to be made subject to
agreeing, voluntarily, to comply with French standards when                 value added tax, whatever the taxable person’s activity
applying for authorisation nor is there anything to prevent                 may be or whatever use he makes of the property
French inspectors from travelling abroad so long as their                   transferred?
inspection is freely consented to by the laboratories concerned.
                                                                       2.   If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is
                                                                            Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as
                                                                            meaning that the transfer of a totality of assets to a
                                                                            taxable person is to be understood as meaning a transfer
                                                                            of all or part of an undertaking to a taxable person who
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Ar-                    continues the whole activity of the transferor undertaking
rondissement de Luxembourg by order of 19 December                          or continues the activity of the branch corresponding to
2001 in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration                        the part of the totality of assets transferred, or merely as
             de l’enregistrement et des domaines                            meaning a transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof
                                                                            to a taxable person who continues the transferor’s line of
                         (Case C-497/01)                                    activity in whole or in part, without there being any
                                                                            transfer of an undertaking or branch of an undertaking?
                          (2002/C 44/17)
                                                                       3.   If the answer to any part of the second question is in the
                                                                            affirmative, does Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive require
                                                                            or allow a State to require that the recipient’s activity be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      pursued in accordance with the licence issued by the
European Communities by order of 19 December 2001 by the                    competent authority for the activity or branch of activity
Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg which was received                  stipulated, assuming that the activity pursued falls within
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2001, for a preliminary                lawful economic channels in the sense contemplated in
ruling in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration de                   the case-law of the Court of Justice?
l’enregistrement et des domaines on the following questions:
1.    Is Article 5(8) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the           (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case T-276/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 January 2006  — Le Canne v Commission (Judgment annulling a Commission decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance — Procedures for compliance — Action for failure to act — No need to adjudicate — Action for compensation)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2006 — Le Canne v Commission
   (Case T-276/03) (1)

   (Judgment annulling a Commission decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance - Procedures for compliance - Action for failure to act - No need to adjudicate - Action for compensation)
   (2006/C 74/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Azienda agricola ‘Le Canne’ (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: F. Mazzonetto and G. Carraro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Application for
   First, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2002 in Case T-241/00 Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR II-1251 and, second, compensation for the loss alleged to have resulted from that failure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim alleging failure to act;

               2.

               Dismisses the claim for compensation;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.


title: Case T-376/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Evaluation report for 2005/2006 — Decision not to promote the appellant in 2007 — Decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-376/08) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Evaluation report for 2005/2006 - Decision not to promote the appellant in 2007 - Decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
   2009/C 233/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR I-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301 of 22.11.2008.


title: Case F-11/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2012 — Ciora v Commission

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2012 — Ciora v Commission
   (Case F-11/12)
   2013/C 46/71
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 7(2)(c) — Applicability of social security conventions between Member States — Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State — Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State — Application for grant of an old-age benefit — Refusal)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs (C-432/13)
      (Joined Cases C-401/13 and C-432/13) (1)

      ((References for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))
      (2015/C 107/05)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Vasiliki Balazs (C-401/13), Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-432/13)

         Defendants: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Cluj (C-401/13), Attila Balazs (C-432/13)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement which relates to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States who had the status of political refugee in the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which is not listed in Annex III to that regulation does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees who were repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and the regulation entered into force.

         (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case T-216/10: Action brought on 10 May 2010 — Monster Cable Products v OHIM — Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (MONSTER ROCK)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/25

         Action brought on 10 May 2010 — Monster Cable Products v OHIM — Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (MONSTER ROCK)
   (Case T-216/10)
   2010/C 195/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Cable Products, Inc. (Brisbane, USA) (represented by: O. Günzel and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 in case R 216/2009-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed;

               —

               Reject the opposition No B 754335 against Community trademark application No 3333804 ‘MONSTER ROCK’ in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MONSTER ROCK’, for goods in class 9

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

      Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313176 of the word mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, for goods in class 16; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313177 of the word mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, for goods in class 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313178 of the word mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, for goods in class 26; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2299141 of the word mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 41 and 43; trade mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, well-known (in the sense of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention) in the old 15 Member States; unregistered trade mark ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, used in the course of trade in the old 15 Member States; trade name ‘MONSTERS OF ROCK’, used in the course of trade in the old 15 Member States

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly assessed the identity/similarity of the goods, (ii) didn’t take into account the differences between the trademarks, in particular their conceptual differences, and (iii) failed to determine the scope of protection of the earlier sign.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-256/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/65)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 16 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-256/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case T-317/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Holcim (Romania) v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Liability for fault — Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving emission allowances allegedly stolen — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Strict liability)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Holcim (Romania) v Commission
   (Case T-317/12) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Liability for fault - Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving emission allowances allegedly stolen - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Strict liability))
   2014/C 388/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holcim (Romania) SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: L. Arnauts, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. White, Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application, based on liability for fault, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant because of the Commission’s refusal to disclose to it information concerning greenhouse gas emission allowances allegedly stolen from it and to prohibit all transactions involving those allowances and, secondly, an application for damages on the basis of strict liability.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-360/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Terza Seconda Sezione Civile (District Court, Brescia, Third Civil Chamber) by order of 2 September 1999 in the case of Union Factor s.p.a. and Others, against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
4.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 352/27
(3) Article 1 of Regulation No 1404/99, although failing to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      fix the derived intervention price for white sugar for Italy,        di Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio (Second Chamber,
      confirmed it, and also the relevant quantities, for the              [Liquidations]) by order of 2 September 1999 in the case
      United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.                of Autogolf s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze, (Ministry
                                                                                of Finance)
      Not being apprised of the reasons which motivated the                                          (Case C-359/99)
      withholding of an intervention price for Italy or of those
      for doing so for the other Member States, the Italian                                          (1999/C 352/43)
      Government considers that there has been a breach of the
      principle of equality and an instance of unequal treatment.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                           Seconda Sezione Stralcio, of 2 September 1999, received at
(1) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 15.                                                  the Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary
(2) OJ 1999 L 164, p. 13.                                                  ruling in the case of Autogolf s.r.l. against Ministero delle
(3) OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4.                                                   Finanze on the following questions:
                                                                           Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998
                                                                           (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)
                                                                           compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
                                                                           and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
                                                                           concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch
                                                                           as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
                                                                           annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for
                                                                           each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
                                                                           the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
Brescia, Seconda Sezione Stralcio, (District Court, Brescia,               limited companies?
Second Chamber [Liquidations]) by order of 2 September
1999 in the case of T.M.A. Tecnologie Meccaniche Avanza-
te s.r.l. and Federchemicals s.r.l. against Ministero delle                Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
                               Finanze                                     munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums
                                                                           to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for
                                                                           by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal
                          (Case C-358/99)                                  rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
                                                                           (2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
                                                                           by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of
                          (1999/C 352/42)                                  26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Seconda Sezione Stralcio, of 2 September 1999, received at
the Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of T.M.A. Tecnologie Meccaniche Avanzate
s.r.l. and Federchemicals s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Brescia, Terza Seconda Sezione Civile (District Court,
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              Brescia, Third Civil Chamber) by order of 2 September
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 1999 in the case of Union Factor s.p.a. and Others, against
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                   Ministero delle Finanze
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of                                             (Case C-360/99)
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 352/44)
limited companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
                                                                           Terza Sezione Civile, of 2 September 1999, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 24 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Union Factor s.p.a. and Others against Ministero
                                                                           delle Finanze on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                         of the European Communities against Ireland
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       (Case C-370/99)
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                       (1999/C 352/46)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
limited companies?                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 1999 by
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and by Manuel Desantes, a
Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-                     national expert seconded to its Legal Service, with an address
munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for             Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal               Luxembourg.
rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
(2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of                     The Applicant claims that the Court should:
26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
                                                                           — find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Euro-
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                             pean Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of
                                                                               11 March 1996 concerning the legal protection of databas-
                                                                               es (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               said Directive, and
                                                                           — order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft                    Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                           v Coalle FA-93                                  a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                           upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                          (Case C-367/99)                                  laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
                                                                           1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                          (1999/C 352/45)                                  to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                           the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                         (1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 21 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft
v Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                   Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European            of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in                                     (Case C-372/99)
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                                             (1999/C 352/47)
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
its registered office in a Member State of the European                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October
Community?                                                                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-42/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Williams v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC on GMOs — Partial refusal of access — Implied refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of commercial interests, protection of international relations and protection of the decision-making process — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Williams v Commission
   (Case T-42/05) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC on GMOs - Partial refusal of access - Implied refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of commercial interests, protection of international relations and protection of the decision-making process - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2008/C 272/29)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rhiannon Williams (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, C. Bryant, Solicitors, and R. Lang, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing the applicant access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no further need to rule on the lawfulness of the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 partially refusing Ms Rhiannon Williams access to certain preparatory documents in respect of the legislation on genetically-modified organisms in so far as it may include an implied refusal of access to preparatory documents from the Commission's Directorate-General (DG) for Trade relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC;

               2.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 19 November 2004 in so far as it impliedly refused access to preparatory documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC other than those produced by the Trade DG;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by Ms Williams.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-527/09: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Ayadi v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Order of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Ayadi v Commission
   (Case T-527/09) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Removal of the interested party from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 89/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin (Ireland)) (represented by: initially B. Emmerson QC, S. Cox, Barrister, and H. Miller, Solicitor, and subsequently by E. Grieves, Barrister, and H. Miller)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta, T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20), in so far as that act concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by Mr Chafiq Ayadi and shall be required to refund to the cashier of the General Court the sums advanced by way of legal aid.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-524/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2011 — Lowlands Design Holding BV, other party: Minister van Financiën

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2011 — Lowlands Design Holding BV, other party: Minister van Financiën
      (Case C-524/11)
      (2012/C 25/47)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Lowlands Design Holding BV

         Respondent: Minister van Financiën

         Question referred

      How should CN subheadings 6209 20, 6211 42 and CN subheading 9404 30 be interpreted for the purposes of the tariff classification of articles for babies or for young children such as those at issue here?


title: Case T-23/10: Action brought on 27 January 2010 — Arkema France v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/37

         Action brought on 27 January 2010 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Case T-23/10)
   2010/C 80/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister, E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1(1) and (2) of Commission’s decision C(2009) 8682 of 11 November 2009 insofar as it relates to the applicant and, in any event, annul Article 1(1) insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in an infringement in tin stabilisers between 16 March 1994 and 31 March 1996,

               —

               cancel the fines imposed on the applicant in Article 2;

               —

               if the Court does not annul the fines in their entirety, substantially reduce them pursuant to its full jurisdiction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, annulment is sought of Commission’s decision of 11 November 2009 in Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers which finds that the applicant participated in two separate infringements of Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU), one in tin stabilisers and one in ESBO, and imposes a fine for each product.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its application:

               First, it is submitted that, on a proper application of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Akzo litigation (2) did not suspend the running of time and the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred for both infringements under the ten year “double limitation” rule. The applicant claims that the Commission erred in law by finding that the period the Akzo proceedings were before the Court operated to suspend the running of time and wrongly concluded that the ten year limit provided for in Article 25(5) of the abovementioned Regulation could be extended in the present case.

               Second, the applicant claims that the Commission has demonstrated no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringements in respect of which it had no power to impose fines. In fact, the applicant submits that Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 allows the Commission to make a declaratory finding that an infringement has been committed if it does not impose a fine, provided that the it is demonstrated that the Commission has a legitimate interest.

               Third, and independently of the two first pleas, the applicant requests the Court to annul the declaratory finding enshrined in Article 1(1) of the contested decision on the basis of which it had participated in an infringement in tin stabilisers during the period 16 March 1994 — 31 March 1996 and contends that the Commission has demonstrated no legitimate interest in making such a finding.

               Fourth, and if the Court does not annul the fines in their entirety, the applicant contends that the Commission has not proved duration beyond 23 February 1999 and that therefore the fine imposed for the second cartel period should be reduced to reflect a shorter duration of the infringements.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2007, in Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03, Akzo Nobel Chemicals et Akcros Chemicals/Commission, [2007], ECR II-3523


title: Case C-80/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/15

         Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-80/07)
   (2007/C 69/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/28 into domestic law expired on 29 November 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 91, 9.4.2005, p. 13.


title: Case T-225/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno Foral de Navarra against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare the action to be admissible;
                                                                         —     annul the whole of the Commission’s decision of 11 July
—     annul the annex to Commission Regulation (EC)                            2001 relating to the system of State aid applied by Spain
      No 1281/2001 (1) in so far as it fixes the quantities                    to certain newly-created undertakings in Navarra (Spain),
      of sugar considered necessary to supply the Azores,
      maintaining in force the preceding situation;
                                                                         —     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision on the
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                      ground that repayment of the aid is unjustified,
      pay all the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent statement of
reasons,                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply
balance, drawn up by the Commission, does not take account               The applicant is challenging Commission Decision
of traditional trade flows,                                              C(2001)1762 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
                                                                         as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
                                                                         reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after                 Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account of the               on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı́n Oficial de
said provision when interpreting and applying legislative                Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
provisions applicable to the outermost regions,                          reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
                                                                         which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 7(1)          Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
EC): the Commission has exercised its executive powers in a              invest a minimum of ESP 100 million (EUR 601 012 ) and
manifestly abusive and unlawful manner,                                  create more than 10 new jobs.
Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of the
forecast made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2000                 According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongly
are unfair and unreasonable.                                             finds that the fiscal regime in question provides for aid within
                                                                         the meaning of Community law, given that they do not
(1) OJ L 176, 29.6.2001, p. 12.                                          comply with the requirements of Article 87 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                         (a)   State resources are not involved. A measure granting a
                                                                               fiscal reduction does not entail a reduction in State
                                                                               revenue, since that would imply that there is a homo-
                                                                               geneous tax debt for which all tax payers are liable.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra against Commission of the European
                          Communities                                    (b) So far as concerns the charge that competition and trade
                                                                               are affected, there are a number of reasons for the view
                         (Case T-225/01)                                       that the Commission has not given an adequate reason
                                                                               for its finding:
                         (2001/C 331/46)
                                                                               —     The Commission has not given the reasons on which
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                its decision is based. Despite having in the file full
                                                                                details regarding the undertakings concerned, the
                                                                                decision contains no analysis whatever either of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            competitive situation of the only two undertakings
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           to which the reduction has been applied and the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno                                extent to which they are involved in intra-Com-
Foral de Navarra (Navarra Regional Government), Navarra                              munity trade or even of the economic sectors in
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                                  which they operate.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 331/29
     —     If the Commission were to apply such reasoning                 Pleas in law and main arguments
           generally to all fiscal legislation, it would arrive at
           the absurd conclusion that any change in the fiscal
           burden constitutes State aid.                                  The applicant has brought the present action against the
                                                                          Commission in order to seek compensation for the damage
     —     If the Commission carried its reasoning to its final           allegedly suffered as a result of the decisions adopted in the
           logical conclusion, the result would be that any               context of the tender procedure opened in relation to the
           variation within the regulatory framework in which             supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of
           undertakings operate would constitute State aid.               Armenia and Azerbaijan under Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice
                                                                          and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and
(c)  The applicant refutes the charge that the measures at                Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18), in particular decision
     issue are selective and specific in nature, since, first, the        C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and decision C(96)2208 of
     legislation is general in nature, not favouring a particular         6 September 1996.
     undertaking or sector over another and, secondly, the
     authority competent to apply it does not enjoy any
     discretion but can instead merely ascertain on a case-by-            Those decisions allowed for the substitution of the fruit
     case basis whether the conditions laid down for triggering           provided for in the tender, with no legal basis nor a supraven-
     the fiscal advantages are met.                                       ing request for it.
                                                                          Both decisions were challenged by the applicant (Joined Cases
                                                                          T-191/96 and T-106/97) (1) before the Court of First Instance
                                                                          which, by judgment of 14 October 1999, annulled the decision
                                                                          of 6 September 1996, declaring the action brought in Case
                                                                          T-106/97 inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi di
Frutta SpA against the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                         Communities                                      forward in the abovementioned cases.
                        (Case T-226/01)                                   (1) [1999] ECR II-3181.
                        (2001/C 331/47)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
                                                                          Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi
di Frutta SpA, represented by Gian Michele Roberti and
Francesco Sciaudone, lawyers.                                                                     (Case T-227/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/48)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
—    find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     liability by adopting the decisions of 22 July and of
     6 September 1996,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    declare that the applicant suffered damage as a result of            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     those decisions amounting to ITL 2 682 049 410,                      European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                          rio Histórico de Alava — Excma. Diputación de Alava, and the
                                                                          Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Alava (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.


title: Case F-58/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission
   (Case F-58/06) (1)

   (2007/C 95/119)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 35.