title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-327/94: SCA Holding Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Liability for the infringement - Fine - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances)

text:
4.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 209/33
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    information from which the behaviour of individual                                   of 14 May 1998
    producers can be identified.'.
                                                                  in Case T-327/94: SCA Holding Ltd v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
    by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 2 500 000.          (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                  Liability for the infringement Ð Fine Ð Statement of
                                                                              reasons Ð Mitigating circumstances)
4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                     (98/C 209/70)
    claims.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                  In Case T-327/94: SCA Holding Ltd, established at
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                  Aylesford, United Kingdom, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                  Scasselati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, and Laurent
                                                                  Garzaniti, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and
                                                                  Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of the European
                                                                  Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Richard Lyal) Ð
                                                                  application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                      of 14 May 1998                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
                                                                  OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third
in Case T-319/94: Fiskeby Board AB v. Commission of               Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
                the European Communities (1)                      B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt,
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Fines             P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
Ð Determination of the amount Ð Mitigating                        GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
           circumstances Ð Statement of reasons)                  judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
                        (98/C 209/69)
                                                                  1. Dismisses the application.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-319/94: Fiskeby Board AB, established at                (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
Norrköping, Sweden, represented by Carl Wetter, of the
Stockholm Bar, and Christopher Vajda, Barrister, of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Richard Lyal) Ð
application for a reduction in the fine imposed on the              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
applicant by Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the                                    of 14 May 1998
EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of                 in Case T-334/94: Sarrió SA v. Commission of the
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended                               European Communities (1)
Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the
Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.             (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the       Concept of single infringement Ð Information exchange
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which           Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Determination of the amount Ð
it:                                                               Method of calculation Ð Statement of reasons Ð
                                                                                Mitigating circumstances)
1. Dismisses the application.                                                             (98/C 209/71)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.                                         In Case T-334/94: Sarrió SA, established at Pamplona,
                                                                  Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the
                                                                  Barcelona Bar, Alberto Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar,
                                                                  Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples


title: Case C-21/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-21/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/55)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-247/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002 in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A.

text:
C 202/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección: Ter-                 hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
cera by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the                           Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas
appeal brought by Asociación Profesional de Empresas de
Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia and Asocia-
ción Nacional de Empresas de Externalización y Gestión                                          (Case C-246/02)
                de Envı́os y Pequeña Paqueterı́a
                                                                                (2002/C 202/20)
                         (Case C-240/02)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                         (2002/C 202/19)                                  (Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 8 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas on the
                                                                          following questions:
                                                                          1.   Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
                                                                               meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala                    the Community customs territory must refer expressly
de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección: Tercera (Supreme                   to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section) of                   compartments?
16 May 2002, received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Asociación
Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Corres-                2.   If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
pondencia (Trade Association of Mail Delivery and Handling
Companies) and Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Exter-                      Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
nalización y Gestión de Envı́os y Pequeña Paqueterı́a (National             meaning that such notification must also be made by the
Association of Companies dedicated to the Externalisation and                  driver of a lorry who was not aware and should not have
Handling of Letters and Small Packages) on the following                       been aware of the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?
questions:
Does the interpretation of Recital 21 to Directive 97/67/EC (1)
permit the exclusion from ‘self-provision’ of postal services
provided by the sender (or another person acting exclusively
on his behalf), if that person is not also the receiver, if the
services are provided in the course of his commercial activity,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
or carried out using the mailbag system or other similar                  Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione
methods, or if self-provision disrupts the services reserved to           staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002
the universal service provider?                                           in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la
                                                                          Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e
                                                                                Carrassi S.p.A.
May money order services be included amongst those reserved                                        (Case C-247/02)
to the universal postal service provider?
                                                                                (2002/C 202/21)
(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
    the internal market of Community postal services and the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    improvement of quality of service. (OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.)     European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
                                                                          tivo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia
                                                                          (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, Brescia Chamber)
                                                                          of 22 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 8 July
                                                                          2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sintesi S.p.A.
                                                                          against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener:
                                                                          Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A. on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/15
‘Does Article 30(1) of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993 (1), in           —     by forwarding incomplete information as to the quantity
so far as it allows individual contracting authorities to choose               of sludge used annually in agriculture as dry matter
either the lowest price or the most economically advantageous                  (information in that regard is completely missing for
offer as the criterion for the award of a contract, constitute                 Abruzzo and Campania and has been incorrectly forward-
a logically consistent application of the principle of free                    ed, that is to say, the information forwarded did not relate
competition which is already enshrined in Article 85 of the                    to dry matter, in respect of Tuscany and Sicily),
Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and requires that all tenders
submitted as part of a procedure for the award of a contract             —     by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
announced within the single market be assessed in such a way                   in which are entered the composition and characteristics
as not to prevent, restrict or distort comparison between                      of the sludge, as required by Annex II A to Directive 86/
them?’                                                                         278/EEC (1), are properly updated, at least as regards
                                                                               Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
                                                                               nia, Valle d’Aosta, Sicily and the Marche, and
‘Does Article 30 of Directive 93/37 of 14 June 1993, as a
strictly logical consequence, preclude Article 21 of Law No 109
of 11 February 1994 from excluding, for the award of public              —     by failing to make proper provision so that the registers
works contracts under open and restricted procedures, the                      in which are entered the quantities of sludge produced
choice by the contracting authority of the criterion of the most               (with regard to the whole of Italy) and the sludge used in
economically advantageous tender, and prescribing, as a                        agriculture (as regards Abruzzo, Campania, Tuscany and
general rule, that of the lowest price only?’                                  Sicily) are properly updated,
                                                                         the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                         Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as amended
                                                                         by Article 5 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC (2), and of
                                                                         Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 86/278/EEC;
                                                                         Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Action brought on 8 July 2002 by the Commission of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
    European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         According to Article 17 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC, as
                        (Case C-248/02)                                  amended by Article 5 of, together with Annex VI(g) to,
                                                                         Council Directive 91/692/EEC, which seeks to standardise and
                        (2002/C 202/22)                                  rationalises reports on the implementation of those directives
                                                                         concerning the environment, the Member States are to provide
                                                                         information every three years on the application of Directive
                                                                         86/278/EEC.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 July 2002
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented               Italy has forwarded inadequate and incomplete information
by Hans Stovlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.                  on the quantity of sewage sludge used in agriculture in 1995 to
                                                                         1997 and on the composition and the characteristics of the
                                                                         sludge as required by Annex II A to the directive.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Declare that:                                                            Furthermore, the Italian authorities have made no provision to
                                                                         keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
                                                                         composition and the characteristics of the sludge, as required
—     by forwarding incomplete information on the average                by Annex II A to the directive, nor have they made provision
      values for concentrations (mg/kg dry matter) on an                 to keep up to date the registers in which are entered the
      annual basis of heavy metal (cadmium, copper, nickel,              quantities of sludge produced and used in agriculture, contrary
      lead, zinc, mercury and chromium) and of the elements              to Article 10(1)(b) of the directive.
      nitrogen and phosphorus contained in sewage sludge
      (information in that regard is completely missing for
      Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Campa-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.
      nia, Valle d’Aosta and Sicily and are inadequate in respect        (2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.
      of the Marche),
—     by failing to forward any information as to quantity
      (t/year) of sewage sludge produced as dry matter,


title: Case C-459/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/44

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-459/13)
   2013/C 344/75
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milica Široká

      Defendant: Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted, in the spirit of the European legal tradition, as authorising every bearer of that right to choose whether to make use of or refuse access to preventative healthcare together with the possibility of using medical care without regard to the mandatory conditions set out in national laws and procedures, or does the public interest in ensuring a high level of health protection for European Union citizens not enable individuals to make that choice?

               2.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4(c) thereof, does the European Union objective of, in particular, preventing physical and mental illness and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health, preclude European Union citizens from refusing ‘compulsory’ vaccination, on the ground that that attitude represents a threat to public health?

               3.

               Does parental responsibility for the purpose of Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which concerns in particular the unifying principle of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, take precedence over the public interest in the protection of health, in favour of the parental care of a minor?


title: Case C-209/08: Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-209/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/75)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-84/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 112/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-            Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.                     —      annul the decision of the defendant refusing the applicant
munity trade mark:                                                                access to certain legislative proposals containing the
                                                                                identity of Member States’ positions, and to a legal
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —                          opinion drawn up by the Council’s Legal Service.
sought:                       Application No 986000 lodged in
                              respect of goods in Classes 32 and
                              33 (inter alia mineral and aerated           —      order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                              waters and other non-alcoholic
                              drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,
                              brandy)
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant                                Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         Figurative mark consisting of a              The applicant is an Italian Member of the European Parliament.
opposition:                   stag’s head with a cross, registered         On 22 October 2002 the applicant submitted a request to the
                              in respect of goods in Classes 18,           defendant requesting access to the documents appearing on
                              25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                    the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Council (Justice and
                              umbrellas,        clothing,      non-        Home Affairs) which took place in Luxembourg on 14 and
                              alcoholic beverages in so far as             15 October 2002. In its reply, dated 5 November 2002, the
                              included in Class 32, wines and              defendant indicated that full access could be granted to most
                              spirits) — Trade mark No 337337              of the documents requested by the applicant. However, with
                                                                           regard to three legislative proposals, the defendant indicated
Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused                         that the applicant could be granted only partial access, and in
sition Division:                                                           particular that access could not be granted to those parts of
                                                                           the proposals identifying the positions taken by the national
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-           delegations on the subject matters under discussion. The
Appeal:                       sition                                       defendant further refused to grant access to a fourth document
                                                                           which contained a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal
Pleas in law:                 —      Infringement of Article 73 of         service.
                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —      Misapplication              of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation         In support of his application the applicant submits the
                                     (EC) No 40/94;                        following contentions:
                              —      Incorrect assessment of the
                                     similarity of the marks.              —      By refusing access to the documents mentioned above,
                                                                                the defendant violated Articles 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of
                                                                                Regulation EC/1049/2001 (1) as well as the principle of
                                                                                proportionality.
                                                                           —      the defendant violated Article 253 EC and Article 7,
                                                                                paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation EC/1049/2001 in that
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco                              it failed to provide sufficient reasons for its Decision
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                           —      the defendant violated citizens’ fundamental political and
                         (Case T-84/03)                                           civil rights as guaranteed by international and European
                                                                                conventions and the European Union treaties, in particu-
                        (2003/C 112/73)                                           lar Article 6 EU, by censoring Member States’ positions
                                                                                when acting as a legislator.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                      L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
Communities on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco,
Pulsano, Italy, represented by Mr O. W. Brouwer and Mr
Thomas Janssens, Lawyers.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 November 1997 in Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des Fédérations d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et Entreprises Assimilées de Wallonie ASBL (Féd. Horeca-Wallonie) v. Commission of the European Communities (Procedure - Time limits - Method of calculation - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 26/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
    additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation         AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie),
    (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those Regulations did             established in Namur (Belgium), represented by Gilles
    not make provision for the allocation of a reference            BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne
    quantity to holdings subject to an undertaking given            and Alain Bernard, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for
    under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of                    service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Gilles BouneÂou,
    17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for                15 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European
    the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for             Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Rozet) Ð application,
    the conversion of dairy herds, where the producers              primarily, for the annulment of the Commission decision,
    had not delivered milk during the reference year                addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium by letter SG(96) D/
    adopted by the Member State concerned, and, second,             8253 of 24 September 1996, not to raise any objection to
    as a result of application of the same Regulation               the implementation by the Wallonia region of a draft
    (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Council Regulation               decree on social tourism Ð the Court of First Instance
    (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, in so far as the              (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
    second indent of Article 3a(1) excluded the allocation          A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy,
    of a special reference quantity to the transferees              A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
    of a premium granted under Regulation (EEC)                     made an order on 20 November 1997 in which it:
    No 1078/77;
                                                                    1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. declares that the period for which the applicants must
    be compensated for the damage suffered as a result of
    the application of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is, in            2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
    Case T-195/94, the period from 12 January 1989 to
    28 July 1993 and, in Case T-202/94, the period from
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
    3 September 1987 to 31 January 1993;
3. orders the parties to forward to the Court, within 12
    months from this judgment, details of the amounts to
    be paid, as agreed by the parties;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties, if no agreement is reached, to                          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
    submit to the Court their views as to the amounts
                                                                                of 24 November 1997
    which should be awarded;
                                                                    in Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen and
5. reserves the costs.                                                 others v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aids Ð Shipbuilding Ð Taxation of costs)
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994 and OJ C 218, 6.8.1994.
                                                                                (98/C 26/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen of Jernskibs- og
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen, with
                    of 20 November 1997                             its registered office in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsvñrft A/S,
                                                                    established in Assens (Denmark), Burmeister & Wain
in Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des FeÂdeÂrations                 Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S,
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et Entreprises                established in Frederikshavn (Denmark), Fredericia
AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie) v.             Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Fredericia (Denmark),
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Odense Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Odense
(Procedure Ð Time limits Ð Method of calculation Ð                  (Denmark), Svendborg Vñrft A/S, established in
                        Inadmissibility)                            Svendborg         (Denmark),       érskov       Christensens
                                                                    Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Frederikshavn, and
                         (98/C 26/11)                               Aarhus Flydedok A/S, established in rhus (Denmark),
                                                                    represented by Jan-Erik Svensson, advokat of the
                                                                    Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
               (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8Ð10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the Kingdom of
                                                                    Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering) against the Commission of
In Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des             FeÂdeÂrations     the European Communities (Agents: Anders Christian
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et           Entreprises      Jessen and Ben Smulders), supported by the Federal


title: Case T-591/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SUPER GLUE — Earlier Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)
   (Case T-591/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SUPER GLUE - Earlier Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 31/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (Jaworzno, Poland) (represented by: M. Konieczyński and I. Kubiec, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Henkel Corp. (Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2011 (Case R 1147/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel Corp. and Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-490/04: Action brought on 29 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/13

         Action brought on 29 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-490/04)
   (2005/C 45/26)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Horstpeter Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by providing that

                           (a)

                           foreign undertakings are obliged to pay contributions to the German holiday pay fund for their posted workers, even if they enjoy an essentially similar level of protection under the law of the State where their employer is established (Paragraph 1(3) of the Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz (Law on the Posting of Workers) (‘the AEntG’);

                           (b)

                           foreign undertakings are obliged to have the employment contract (or the documents required, pursuant to Directive 91/533/EEC, under the law of the State where the employee is resident), pay slips, time sheets, proof of payment of wages, and all other documents required by the German authorities, translated into German (Paragraph 2 of the AEntG);

                           (c)

                           foreign employment agencies are obliged not only to give prior notification each time a worker is posted to a user of the worker's services in Germany, but also each time a worker starts a new job on a building site at the request of the user of his services (Paragraph 3(2) of the AEntG);

                     the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission contends that furthermore certain provisions of the AEntG which transposed Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers into national law do not comply with certain provisions of that directive.
   Rules relating to the obligation of employers established in a Member State other than Germany to pay contributions to the German holiday pay fund
   In the Commission's view, the obligation to pay contributions to the German holiday pay fund constitutes an inadmissible restriction on the freedom to provide services, within the meaning of Article 49 EC, where employers who post their workers grant them the same paid holiday entitlement as that laid down by the German rules contained in the collective agreements and, under the legal system in the State from which they are posted, such workers enjoy the same or similar protection with respect to holiday pay as is guaranteed in Germany.
   Rules relating to the obligation of employers established in a Member State other than Germany to translate documents
   In the Commission's view, the requirement for documents to be translated is appropriate to meeting Germany's monitoring needs. However, having regard to the cooperation on information provided for by Article 4 of the Directive on the posting of workers, the obligation to translate all documents is no longer necessary and is therefore too far-reaching.
   Rules relating to the obligation of employment agencies established in a Member State other than Germany to notify the competent authorities of the change before each transfer of a posted worker from one building site to another one.
   Even if the obligation of employment agencies established outside Germany to notify each change has been slightly amended, the Commission is of the view that there is still unequal treatment, as, in the case of employment agencies established in Germany, the obligation to notify each change falls on the user of the worker's services, while in the case of employment agencies established outside Germany that obligation falls in principle on the supplier of labour and can be transferred to the user of the worker's services only by means of a contractual agreement. This unequal treatment constitutes an inadmissible restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC.


title: Case F-131/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Baniel-Kubinova and Others v Parliament

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/32

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Baniel-Kubinova and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-131/07)
   (2008/C 183/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Barbora Baniel-Kubinova and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the appointing authority of the European Parliament not to grant the applicants the daily subsistence allowance laid down in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants invoke the infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-471/12: Action brought on 29 October 2012 — Meta Group v Commission

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/39

         Action brought on 29 October 2012 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Case T-471/12)
   2013/C 9/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Coltelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Note No 939970 of the D.G. Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission of 2 August 2012, received by the applicant on 20 August 2012 and signed by the Director of the ‘Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries’ Unit, concerning the ‘launch recovery procedure to FP5-FP6 payment contracts No 517557 IRE6 INNOVATION COACH, 517539 IRE6 MARIS, 517548 IRE6 RIS MAZOVIA, 030583 CONNECT-2-IDEAS, 039982 EASY, 014660 RIS MALOPOLSKA, 517529 IINNSOM, 014637 RIS TRNAVA and 014668 RIS WS’ signed by the Director Dr Carlo Pettinelli, by which the Commission’s decision ‘to recover the amount of EUR 345 451.03 under the above agreement’ was communicated.

               —

               And, in so far as necessary:

               —

               Annul Note No 660283 of the D. G. Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission of 1 June 2012 signed by the Director of the ‘Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries’ Unit and concerning the same matter, which is also contested as an internal measure relating to the recovery procedure which concluded with the adoption of the provision referred to in the above paragraph.

               —

               Annul the Note of 27 September 2012 concerning the recovery of the amount claimed by setting this off against amounts in the applicant’s credit balance in connection with the projects which had received grant funding.

               —

               Annul the Note of 27 September 2012 concerning the recovery of the amount claimed by setting this off against amounts in the applicant’s credit balance.

               —

               Annul the Budget Execution (general budget and EDF) Note of the European Commission of 10 October 2012, by which the applicant was notified of the setting off against further amounts in its credit balance, amounting in total to EUR 294 290.59.

               —

               Annul all previous and subsequent measures, whether related or subordinate.

               —

               Accordingly:

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 294 290,59, together with the sum of EUR 54 705,97, and compensation in respect of the resulting loss.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the grant agreements concluded by the applicant and the Commission in the context of the ‘Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development of the European Union’.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 1.1 of the grant agreement, breach of the principle of reasonableness and manifest error in the assessment of the facts.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the applicant has provided evidence that the remuneration of its own worker members is fully in line with market values and with the remuneration received by self-employed ‘parasubordinate’ workers and employees pursuing similar activities. Iner alia, the employment on the basis of ‘continuous and coordinated contractual relationships’ of international experts engaged in activities connected with the projects in question is perfectly legitimate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle that administrative action should be proportionate and breach of the principles of sound administration, transparency and that criteria must be determined in advance.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the existence of a multiplicity of criteria which may be used for the purpose of determining the methods of calculating remuneration should have led the administration to adopt the criterion most favourable to private individuals. Once it was realised that there is considerable variation among the rates paid on the Italian and European markets for the same services, the appropriate course of conduct for the administration would have been to adopt a solution liable to cause the least detriment possible.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle that administrative action should be reasonable, on the grounds of manifest contradiction and unequal treatment.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that while the justification given in the contested measure for the recovery is that the method used for calculating eligible costs and remuneration is unlawful, that measure is clearly at variance with decisions previously adopted by the Commission, since the very same methodology which is the subject of complaint here has been also been viewed in a positive light by that institution.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principle of good faith and the principles of the protection of acquired rights and legal certainty and breach of the duty of care.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the Commission’s conduct has given rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicant, in so far as the administration’s decision that the grant agreement relating to the ECOLINK + project was to be concluded ‘in accordance with the solution elaborated to the noteworthy findings of a recent audit report’ [sic] and the decision to provide in the subsequent amendment to that agreement that, as regards the Shareholders, it was necessary to use ‘the methodology annexed to the contract and the relative costs are reported in the company’s books’ [sic] show that it may be inferred that the Commission had in fact, by that stage, indicated its acceptance of the methods of calculating costs proposed by META.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning, breach of the rule that the parties should be heard, the principle of sound administration, breach of the procedures laid down by the grant agreements and of the Code of proper administrative conduct.


title: Case C-18/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others v De Nederlandsche Bank NV and De Nederlandsche Bank NV v CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Direct insurance other than life assurance — Directive 92/49/EEC — Articles 15, 15a and 15b — Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases in a qualifying holding — Possibility to attach a restriction or requirement to the approval of a proposed acquisition)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others v De Nederlandsche Bank NV and De Nederlandsche Bank NV v CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others
   (Case C-18/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Directive 92/49/EEC - Articles 15, 15a and 15b - Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increases in a qualifying holding - Possibility to attach a restriction or requirement to the approval of a proposed acquisition))
   (2015/C 279/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compaňía Espaňola de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré, De Nederlandsche Bank NV

      Defendants: De Nederlandsche Bank NV, CO Sociedad de Gestión y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compaňía Espaňola de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State, in a situation in which the competent national authority could validly oppose a proposed acquisition pursuant to Article 15b(2) thereof, from authorising that authority, pursuant to its national legislation, to attach restrictions or requirements to the approval of the proposed acquisition, either on its own initiative or by formalising commitments given by the proposed acquirer, provided that the rights of the proposed acquirer under that directive are not adversely affected.

               2.

               Directive 92/49, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authority is not required to impose restrictions or requirements on the proposed acquirer before it can oppose the proposed acquisition. If that authority decides to attach restrictions or requirements to the approval of a proposed acquisition, those requirements cannot be based on a criterion which is not among those set out in Article 15b(1) of that directive, nor can they go beyond what is necessary in order for the acquisition to satisfy those criteria.

               3.

               Article 15b(1) of Directive 92/49, as amended by Directive 2007/44, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it does not preclude the competent national authority from imposing a requirement relating to corporate governance concerning, as in the case in the main proceedings, the composition of the supervisory boards of the insurance companies concerned by the proposed acquisition.
               It is for the national court to determine, by taking account of all the circumstances in the main proceedings, whether that requirement is necessary to enable the acquisitions at issue in the main proceedings to satisfy the criteria laid down in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-105/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-105/06) (1)

   (2006/C 249/23)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case T-516/10: Action brought on 3 November 2010 — France v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/30

         Action brought on 3 November 2010 — France v Commission
   (Case T-516/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — LEADER+);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — LEADER+). That decision provides that the assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, which was allocated pursuant to Commission Decision C(2001) 2094 of 7 August 2001, in respect of the expenditure effected under the Community initiative programme Leader+ in France is reduced by EUR 7 437 217,61.
   Principally, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 9(l) and the third subparagraph of Article 32(1) of Regulation No 1260/1999. (1) The Commission took the view that the local action groups (LAGs) were the final beneficiaries of the Community initiative programme Leader+. However, the final beneficiaries of that programme were not the LAGs, but the project promoters. Consequently, contrary to what it maintains, the Commission was not led to pay in advance the expenditure effected by the final beneficiaries of the programme Leader+.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. By not adopting conclusions following an audit carried out in April 2005, then by not suspending the expenditure concerned, the Commission acted in a way which was liable to make the French authorities believe that the Commission was not calling into question their interpretation of the role of the LAGs and that, in any event, their management system concerning statements of expenditure did not involve any serious failings justifying a financial correction.
   In the further alternative, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because the Commission should have chosen a lower amount of financial correction. First, the Commission erred as regards the amount of the basis of assessment to take into account in order to calculate the financial correction of 5 %. Secondly, the Commission infringed Article 39(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999 by not choosing a financial correction proportionate to the financial implications of the shortcomings found.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).


title: Case T-622/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2011 by Francesca Cervelli against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 September 2011 in Case F-98/10, Cervelli v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/37

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2011 by Francesca Cervelli against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 September 2011 in Case F-98/10, Cervelli v Commission
   (Case T-622/11 P)
   2012/C 32/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Francesca Cervelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Admit the appeal and declare it admissible;

               —

               Regard the appeal as having been brought in the name and for the benefit of Ms Francesca Cervelli by her legal representatives;

               —

               Declare the order delivered on 12 September 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal void in its entirety;

               —

               Order the matter to be referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal for examination of the substance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, since the CST took the view that the appellant could not rely on the emergence of a new fact consisting in the judgment delivered by the General Court on 19 June 2007 in Case T-473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission, not published in the ECR. The appellant submits that that judgment constitutes a new fact, since the judgment concerns the same situation as that of the appellant and since the main part of the analysis in that judgment concerns an objective point and not facts particular to the case.
               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in law, since the CST gave absolute priority to the discretion based on the principle of the autonomy of the Appointing Authority over the principle of unity of the civil service.


title: Case T-580/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/21

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)
   (Case T-580/12)
   2013/C 79/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jenkins, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Turkey

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the second board of appeal of the 17 September 2012.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘ATATURK’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 25, 29, 30 and 32 (Community trade mark 4 633 434)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Republic of Turkey

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-343/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruits and vegetables — Exclusion of financing of costs of printing on packaging — Non-compliance with criteria for recognising a producers’ organisation — Exclusion of expenses of all members of the producers’ organisation in question — Proportionality)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-343/11) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruits and vegetables - Exclusion of financing of costs of printing on packaging - Non-compliance with criteria for recognising a producers’ organisation - Exclusion of expenses of all members of the producers’ organisation in question - Proportionality)
   2013/C 325/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, B. Koopman and C. Schillemans, subsequently by C. Wissels, M. de Ree and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33) in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-147/09: Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Trelleborg Industrie v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/41

         Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Trelleborg Industrie v Commission
   (Case T-147/09)
   2009/C 153/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trelleborg Industrie SAS (Clermont Ferrand, France) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicant and in any event at least insofar as it finds the commission of any infringement by the applicant prior to 21 June 1999;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 so as to correct the manifest errors in the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 Final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/39406 — Marine Hoses insofar as it holds it liable for participation in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector in the EEA, which consisted of allocating tenders, fixing prices, fixing quotas, fixing sales conditions, geographic market sharing, and the exchange of sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders. Furthermore, it seeks the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it submits that the Commission’s power to impose fines for any period before 21 June 1999 is time barred under Article 25(1) of Regulation 1/2003 as the applicant argues that the Commission made manifest error in fact and law in finding that the applicant had committed a single and continuous infringement.
   Second, it claims that the Commission has no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringement for the first period which had come to an end in May 1997.
   Third, alternatively, the applicant argues that the Commission has unlawfully discriminated against it in treating it differently from another addressee as regards liability for a corporate predecessor and has breached the right to be heard and the obligation to give reasons.


title: Case T-367/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Poland v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural Development — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Article 33b of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Mixed financial correction — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-367/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural Development - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Article 33b of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Mixed financial correction - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 027/38)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (Represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Straś, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11), in so far as the Commission applies in that decision corrections amounting to EUR 8 292 783,94 and EUR 71 610 559,39 to expenditure declared by the Republic of Poland in respect of support for semi-subsistence farms.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-96/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Right to reimbursement — Sugar held in stock and not exported — Undue enrichment — Freedom to conduct a business — Method of calculation)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — France) — Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-96/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Right to reimbursement - Sugar held in stock and not exported - Undue enrichment - Freedom to conduct a business - Method of calculation))
   (2016/C 305/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre, formerly Saint Louis Sucre SA

      Defendant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer on a sugar producer the right to be reimbursed for production levies paid on the quantities of sugar under A and B quotas which were still stored on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

               2.

               No factors have been disclosed capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case C-511/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014  — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited
   (Case C-511/14)
   (2015/C 034/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile di Bologna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pebros Servizi s.r.l.

      Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

      Question referred

   In the case of a judgment in default (of appearance), given against the defendant in default of appearance/failing to appear without, moreover, there being any express acknowledgement of the law by the defendant in default/failing to appear;
   Is it for national law to decide whether such procedural conduct amounts to non-contestation, for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004/EC of 21 April 2004 (1), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 30 April 2004, which could possibly, under national law, negate the uncontested nature of the claim

      or

   Does a judgment in default of appearance constitute, by reason of its very nature alone, on the basis of EU law, non-contestation, with the result that Regulation No 805/2004 applies, irrespective of the assessment of the national court?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).


title: Case T-433/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Allen and Others v Commission (Appeal — Staff employed at the JET joint undertaking — Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff — Compensation for material damage suffered — Time-limits for instituting proceedings — Late submission — Reasonable period)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Allen and Others v Commission
   (Case T-433/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff employed at the JET joint undertaking - Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff - Compensation for material damage suffered - Time-limits for instituting proceedings - Late submission - Reasonable period)
   2012/C 32/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: John Allen (Horspath, United Kingdom) and the 109 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: K. Lasok QC and B. Lask, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2010 in Case F-103/09 Allen and Others v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr John Allen and the 109 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-26/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/26

         Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-26/14 P)
   2014/C 93/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by O. Mader, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12 (Schönberger v Court of Auditors);

               —

               allow the applicant’s claims at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: The Civil Service Tribunal failed to give a ruling on the first plea in law, according to which, with only three positions available for promotions in the promotion year 2011, the five-year average for 2007 until 2011 stated in the Staff Regulations was missed by 10 positions.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: The appellant claims that, by declaring the promotion years 2010 until 2014 to be the five-year period at issue, the judgment under appeal distorts the position of the parties.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: The appellant submits that the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed because he was not given an opportunity to comment on the five-year period considered relevant by the Civil Service Tribunal.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal: The appellant alleges a failure to state reasons because the judgment under appeal does not explain why the five-year period from 2010 until 2014 must be accepted as the reference period.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal: The appellant complains that, by its interpretation of the Staff Regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal goes against the clearly-expressed intention of the legislature to start with a new five-year period in the year 2014.

               6.

               Sixth ground of appeal: The appellant complains here that, by basing its judgment on an interpretation of the Staff Regulations which was explicitly rejected by the defendant, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               7.

               Seventh ground of appeal: The appellant claims that the principle of equal treatment was applied incorrectly and not in accordance with settled case-law.


title: Case T-400/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Combination of 24 coloured squares) (Community trade mark — Application for Community colour mark — Combination of 24 coloured squares — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Combination of 24 coloured squares)
   (Case T-400/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community colour mark - Combination of 24 coloured squares - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/59)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: GretagMacbeth LLC (New Windsor, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 30/2007-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a colour sign composed of 24 coloured squares
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders GretagMacbeth LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case C-649/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2015 by TV2/Danmark A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/23

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2015 by TV2/Danmark A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-649/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/29)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Danmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

      Forms of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of TV2’s principal claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the measures investigated constituted State aid covered by Article 107(1) TFEU. In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration.

               2.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds in favour of the Commission in respect of the second part of TV2’s alternative claim, rule on the case and annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the licence fee revenue which, in the years 1997-2002, was transferred to TV2 and then on to the regions, constituted State aid in favour of TV2. In the alternative, refer this part of the case back to the General Court for reconsideration.

               3.

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders TV2 to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the Commission’s costs; order the Commission to pay TV2’s costs associated with the proceedings before both the General Court and the Court of Justice. Should the case be referred back to the General Court, a corresponding decision on costs should be made on the referred portion of the case referred back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which rejects TV2’s first plea in law and thus TV2’s principal claim is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, thereby vitiating that judgment with an error of law. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

                           —

                           The refusal in the judgment under appeal to accept that the checks carried out by the Rigsrevisionen (National Audit Office) were sufficient to fulfil the fourth Altmark condition is based on a strict, literal application of that condition’s requirement of cost comparison. This is legally wrong.

                           —

                           Contrary to what the General Court states in the judgment under appeal, the specific nature of TV2’s public service obligations and the retroactive application of the Altmark conditions lead to a situation where there should have been a purposive application of that condition: see the principle in the General Court’s judgment of 12 February 2008 in BUPA, T-289/03, ECLI:EU:T:2008:29, etc.

                           —

                           The Rigsrevisionen’s ongoing checks to make sure that TV2 was a well-run business ensured that the basic purpose of the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled and, therefore, in the specific circumstances of the case involving TV2 and in the light of the purposive application of the condition, sufficient to find that the fourth Altmark condition was fulfilled.

               2.

               TV2 further submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim is vitiated by an error of law because it is contrary to fundamental procedural principles. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

                           —

                           In its statement in defence the Commission had stated it agreed with TV2 on the point that the licence fee revenue which TV2 passed on to the regions in the period 1997-2002 did not constitute State aid in favour of TV2. The General Court thereby ruled ultra petita because it dealt with and rejected the second part of TV2’s alternative claim. The judgment under appeal is therefore vitiated by an error of law.

                           —

                           The General Court further ruled on the merits on the basis of its own line of argument. The General Court’s considerations as set out in paragraphs 165-174 of the judgment under appeal have not been argued at any point by either TV2 or the Commission; nor are they to be found in the contested decision. The General Court thereby exceeded the limits of its judicial review.

                           —

                           At the same time the General Court infringed the principle of the right to a fair hearing: see Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it based its decision on pleas and arguments on which the parties to the case had not submitted pleadings.

               3.

               Lastly, TV2 submits that that part of the judgment under appeal which deals with the merits and rejects the second part of TV2’s alternative claim (paragraphs 165-174) is vitiated by an error of law because it is based on a clearly incorrect interpretation of Danish law and is contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. TV2 puts forward the following principal arguments in support thereof:

                           —

                           The General Court considers and accords decisive weight to the fact that TV2, as part of fulfilling its duties to distribute regional programmes, received regional programmes from the regions, in return for which the transfer of licence fee revenue was payment for those programmes. This cannot be deduced from the players in the case before the General Court and is clearly contrary to Danish law. The legal test which can be deduced from paragraphs 166, 167 and 171 of the judgment under appeal is therefore substantively met.

                           —

                           In paragraphs 166, 167 and the first sentence of paragraph 173 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court refers to a hypothetical scenario as part of its State aid assessment. That scenario is inconceivable in practice and irrelevant to the State aid assessment. The decisive factor in TV2’s case is, in fact, that TV2 did not derive any economic advantage from the transferred licence fee revenue. As a matter of public law, TV2 was obliged to transfer the licence fee revenue to the regions and did, in practice, perform that obligation. The General Court’s decision is therefore contrary to the concept of State aid as laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94: Detlef Nölle v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action to establish non-contractual liability - Admissibility - Basic anti-dumping Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 - Breach - Anti-dumping Regulation (EEC) No 725/89 - Invalidity - Liability by reason of legislative measures - Principle of care - Right to a fair hearing - Sufficiently serious breach)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 13
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 such imports, declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its
Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission               judgment of 22 October 1991 in Case C-16/90 Nölle v.
of the European Communities ( agents : Francisco Enrique             Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen [ 1991 ] ECR 1-5163 — the
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by French                Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, extended
Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and         composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application for annulment of the              D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and
Commission's decision of 29 July 1993 rejecting a                    V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
complaint relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86          18 September 1995 , in which it:
of the EEC Treaty and for immediate re-examination of the
complaint ( IV/33.374 ), the Court of First Instance ( First         1 . dismisses the application;
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Vilaça , President, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner, A.                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 18 September 1995 , the operative part
of which is as follows :                                             (') OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
1.   the Commission 's decision contained in the letter dated
     29 July 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
     24 November 1989 (IV/33.374) is annulled;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;                                       of 18 September 1995
                                                                     in Case T-168/94: Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v.
3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the                Council of the European Union and Commission of the
     proceedings with the exception of those of the                                    European Communities (*)
     intervener, which are to be borne by the intervener.
                                                                     (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the
                                                                     Community — Causal Link — Anti-dumping duties —
(') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .                                                   Basic Regulation No 2423/88)
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-168/94 : Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                     of 18 September 1995                            office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                     J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, Manchester ( United
in Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle v. Council of the European           Kingdom ), represented by K. P. E. Lasok, Barrister, of the
          Union and Commission of the European                       Bar of England and Wales, and Charles Khan, Solicitor, with
                        Communities ( ] )                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(Action to establish non-contractual liability —                     Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve, against
Admissibility — Basic anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jorge Monteiro,
No 2423/88 — Breach — Anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ) and Commission of
No 725/89 — Invalidity — Liability by reason oflegislative           the European Communities ( Agent: Eric White ) —
measures — Principle of care — Right to a fair hearing —             application under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
                  Sufficiently serious breach)                       Article 215 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
                          ( 95/C 286/31 )                            Council and the Commission are liable to compensate the
                                                                     applicants for the loss they claim to have suffered as a result
                                                                     of the acts and defaults of those institutions in connection
               (Language of the case: German)                        with the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                     paint- and other brushes originating in the People's
In Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle, trading as ' Eugen Nölle', of       Republic of China — the Court of First Instance ( First
Remscheid ( Germany ), represented by Frank Montag and               Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Hans-Joachim Prieß, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, against                 Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A.
Council of the European Union (Agents : Jorge Monteiro,              Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Jürgen Huber, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch) and               given a judgment on 18 September 1995 , in which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Eric
White and Claus-Michael Happe ) — application under                   1 . dismisses the application;
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
EEC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
 suffered by the applicant undertaking by reason of the              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs jointly and
adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 725/89 of                       severally.
20 March 1989 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes             (!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
 originating in the People's Republic of China and
 definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty on


title: Case T-652/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 December 2014  — AF Steelcase v OHIM (Interim measures — Public procurement — Supply and installation of furniture — Rejection of a submitted tender — Application for suspension of operation — No prima facie case)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM
   (Case T-652/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public procurement - Supply and installation of furniture - Rejection of a submitted tender - Application for suspension of operation - No prima facie case))
   (2015/C 056/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: AF Steelcase, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, essentially, suspension of the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the tender procedure concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories in OHIM’s buildings.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.