               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/56

         Correction to the Official Journal notice in Case C-310/01

      (Official Journal of the European Union C 55 of 8 March 2003)

   (2004/C 300/109)
   In the Official Journal notice in Case C-310/01 Comune di Udine, Azienda Multiservizi SpA (AMGA) and Diddi Dino Figli Srl, Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione servizi tecnici integrati (AGESI), the text should be replaced by the following:

      ORDER OF THE COURT
      (Fourth Chamber)
      of 14 November 2002
      (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, Azienda Multiservizi SpA (AMGA) and Diddi Dino Figli Srl, Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione servizi tecnici integrati (AGESI) (1)

      (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Question to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the case-law - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public contracts concerning both products and services - Value of the products greater than that of the services - Application of Directive 93/36/EEC)
      (2003/C 55/50)
      Language of the case: Italian
      In Case C-310/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Comune di Udine, Azienda Multiservizi SpA (AMGA) and Diddi Dino Figli Srl, Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione servizi tecnici integrati (AGESI) — on the interpretation of Articles 1(b), 2 and 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
      Article 2 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a public contract which concerns both products within the meaning of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and services within the meaning of Directive 92/50 if the value of the products included in the contract is greater than that of the services provided.
      Directive 93/36 applies to such a contract unless the contracting authority exercises over the supplier a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and the supplier carries out the essential parts of its activities with the controlling contracting authority or authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: Case F-87/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Adriaens and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Adriaens and Others v Commission
   (Case F-87/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/118
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Stéphane Adriaens (Evere, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the defendant’s decision, contained in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit their salary adjustment, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1.85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-87/10 Adriaens and Others v Commission.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.2011, p. 40.


title: Case T-172/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/61

      Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission
      (Case T-172/16)
      (2016/C 211/76)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni SRL (Catania, Italy) (represented by: E. Castorina, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015, C(2015) 5549 final, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 February 2016, in so far as it provides (Article 4(5)) that ‘Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under all schemes referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ and, in any case, in so far as it may prevent the applicant company obtaining the recovery of sums paid to the Agenzia delle Entrate dello Stato italiano in excess of the flat-rate of 10 % for its tax position (years 1990-1992), in accordance with Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002; law which the courts rely upon in the Italian legal system.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

                  —

                  In this regard, it claims that, when the European Commission states, as it does in the contested decision, that it is objectively impossible to recover (from the other companies that had to pay no more than 10 % of the sums owed) the state aid held to be illegal, it is a fact in law that — according to the principles set out above — the applicant’s right to recover the sums paid in excess of the provisions of Law No 289/2002 may not be denied: otherwise, there would be an intolerable, very serious difference in treatment between the applicant and the businesses of the province of Catania, now relieved by the contested decision from any payment up to 90 % of the amount of the unpaid tax.

            Therefore, precisely as a result of the contested decision of the European Commission, an unfair competitive advantage has arisen for all the other companies, but to the detriment of the applicant, in respect of the damage sustained as a result of the natural disaster which occurred over 10 years before the decision of 14 August 2015. Under Italian law, businesses are not required to maintain administrative and accounting records for more than 10 years. Therefore, the Centro Morgagni is no longer in a position to provide evidence of having suffered damage for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, with obvious infringement of the principles of equality, right of defence, protection of legitimate expectations (Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 2, 6, 9, 21 TEU) and distortion of competition in the conditions for equal treatment of operators.


title: Case C-441/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Failure to provide a factual description — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — Ioan Anghel v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-441/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Failure to provide a factual description - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 63/34
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioan Anghel

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Secția Bacău Secția Comercială, Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State — Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU — Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-171/05 RII: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  17 February 2006  — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — New action — Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure — New facts)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/13

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-171/05 RII)
   (Proceedings for interim relief - Officials - New action - Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure - New facts)
   (2006/C 96/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Application for
   Suspension of operation of the Court of Auditors' decision of 2 December 2004 to promote an official other than the applicant to the post of principal translator at grade LA5 in the Dutch Section of the Translation Service of the General Secretariat of the Court of Auditors
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-45/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Tzirani v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Filling an A2 post — Rejection of candidature — Principle of legality)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Tzirani v Commission
   (Case T-45/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Filling an A2 post - Rejection of candidature - Principle of legality)
   (2006/C 212/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 February 2003 to reject the applicant's candidature for the A2 grade post of Director of the ‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and advisory services’ Directorate in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General of the Commission; an application for annulment of the appointment of M.J. for that post and also an application for annulment, if necessary, of the explicit decision by the Commission to reject the applicant's complaint against those two decisions
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission to appoint M.J. for the post concerned in the vacancy COM/151/02 and also the decision to reject the candidature of the applicant for that post.

               2.

               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004


title: Case T-501/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — May v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/28

         Action brought on 18 September 2013 — May v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU)
   (Case T-501/13)
   2013/C 336/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Karl May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Pejman, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 July 2013 in Case R 125/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘WINNETOU’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 39, 41, 42 and 43 (Community trade mark No 2 735 017)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Cancellation Division’s decision was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle of the autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark and of the Community trade mark regime and infringement of Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 47, 21.2.2004

text:
C 59/38         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         6.3.2004
                                                          III
                                                       (Notices)
                                                   (2004/C 59/60)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
        OJ C 47, 21.2.2004
        Past publications
        OJ C 35, 7.2.2004
        OJ C 21, 24.1.2004
        OJ C 7, 10.1.2004
        OJ C 304, 13.12.2003
        OJ C 289, 29.11.2003
        OJ C 275, 15.11.2003
                                             These texts are available on:
                                        EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                         CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-380/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Tariff headings — Decolourising earth — Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 2508 — Concept of washed products — Elimination of impurities without changing the structure of the product — Chapter 38 of the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 3802 )

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-380/12) (1)

   (Tariff headings - Decolourising earth - Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading 2508 - Concept of washed products - Elimination of impurities without changing the structure of the product - Chapter 38 of the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading 3802)
   2014/C 93/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Decolorising earth — Classification under subheading 2508 40 00 or under subheading 3802 90 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Notion of ‘eliminating impurities’ within the meaning of Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘eliminating impurities’ referred to in Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as covering the elimination of chemical components found in a mineral product in a crude state through natural circumstances, in so far as that elimination takes place with a view to enhancing the ability of the products at issue to fulfil their inherent intended use, which it is for the national court to verify.

               2.

               Note 1 to Chapter 25 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that products which have undergone treatment involving the use of chemical substances and leading to the elimination of impurities may be classified under CN tariff heading 2508 only if that treatment has not modified their superficial structure, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case C-123/06: Action brought on  2 March 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/8

         Action brought on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-123/06)
   (2006/C 96/15)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dominique Maidani and Georgios Zavvos, Legal Advisers in its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to comply with Directive 2001/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the case in point, Article 34 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 5 May 2004 at the latest and are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ No L 125, 5.5.2001, p. 15.


title: Case T-659/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ — Grounds for invalidity — Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE)
   (Case T-659/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ - Grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009))
   (2016/C 007/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso de Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Harvard Duclos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Orders Bruichladdich Distillery to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-33/01: Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 134/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
           Tralli against the European Central Bank
                                                                         —     annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision
                         (Case T-27/01)                                        under Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (as amended)
                                                                               that measures taken by the United Kingdom to ensure
                        (2001/C 134/53)                                        that broadcasters within its jurisdiction do not broadcast
                                                                               events of major importance for society on an exclusive
                                                                               basis are compatible with Community law, and communi-
                                                                               cating the UK measures to the other Member States so as
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               to oblige them to ensure that broadcasters within their
                                                                               respective jurisdictions comply with the UK measures;
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau              —     declare under Article 241 EC that Article 3(a) TWF
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and                  Directive, in whole or in part, is inapplicable and cannot
Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in               serve as a basis for the Commission’s decision; and
Luxembourg.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    proceedings.
(1) annul the defendant’s decision, contained in a document
      dated 29 January 2001, rejecting the applicant’s com-
      plaint;                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(2) annul the unilateral extension of the applicant’s pro-
      bationary period;                                                  The present application requests the annulment of the decision
                                                                         of the Commission of or around 18 November 2000 under
(3) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552, of 3 October 1989, on the
                                                                         coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
                                                                         or administrative Action in Member States concerning the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1) (the Directive).
                                                                         In that decision the Commission found compatible with
                                                                         Community Law United Kingdom (UK) measures prohibiting
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               broadcasters from broadcasting certain listed sporting events
advanced in Case T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (not yet published).              in a way that deprived a substantial proportion of the UK from
                                                                         viewing them and communicated the UK measures to the
                                                                         other Member States in order to ensure that broadcasters
                                                                         within their respective jurisdictions comply with the UK
                                                                         measures.
                                                                         In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media                        decision infringes:
GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —     the principle of proportionality,
                         (Case T-33/01)
                                                                         —     the applicants’ right to property by fundamentally affect-
                                                                               ing its ability to dispose of its World Cup rights, thereby
                        (2001/C 134/54)                                        affecting their value,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     the applicants’ freedom to carry on an economic activity
                                                                               by affecting their ability to undertake their business in
                                                                               the managing, marketing and sale of the World Cup
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      rights,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media
GmbH & Co KgaA, a company incorporated under Germany                     —     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
law and Kirchmedia WM AG, a company incorporated under                         and the principle of non-retroactivity by applying
Swiss law, represented by Professor Carl Otto Lenz, Andreas                    measures to rights which the applicants purchased before
Bardong and Edward William Batchelor, of Baker & McKenzie,                     the entry into force of the UK measures or Article 3(a) of
London (UK).                                                                   the Directive,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 134/25
—     the principle of equality by applying measures to the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      applicants that discriminate, without justification,
      between holders of rights who are broadcasters and
      holders who are not,                                              —      declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt any
—     Article 3(a)2 of the Directive                                           decision whatever regarding the complaint made by the
                                                                               applicant on 23 February 1999, relating to the State aid
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible                   granted by the Spanish authorities to Banco Español de
           with Community law as regards the procedures                        Crédito SA; and
           adopted by the UK in drawing up and consulting on
           the UK measures.
                                                                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible
           with Community law, in that the measures infringe
           general principles of Community Law, Articles 43
           and 48 EC, the principle of free competition within
           the internal market, discrimination on grounds of
           nationality and infringement of the right to freedom         Pleas in law and main arguments
           of expression,
      —    by excluding from its assessment of the UK measures
           the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (sec-            The applicant states that, on 23 February 1999, he lodged a
           tions 99 and 100) relating to the prohibition of             complaint with the Competition Commissioner, claiming that
           exclusivity and of mandatory licensing provisions.           a number of financial measures had been adopted by the
                                                                        Spanish authorities in favour of Banco Español de Crédito and
The applicants further submit that Article 3(a) of the Directive        Banco de Santander, which in his view amounted to State aid.
is inapplicable under Article 241 EC as was introduced by               Such aid, despite having been granted in 1994, was not fully
means of an unlawful legislative procedure and has no legal             analysed by the Commission at the time.
basis.
Finally, the applicants submit that, in adopting the contested
                                                                        That complaint was followed by the submission of a number
decision, the Commission infringed essential procedural safe-
                                                                        of documents and even a meeting between the applicant and
guards by failing to adopt it in accordance with its internal
                                                                        the relevant Commission services. Despite all the information
rules of procedure and by failing in its duty to state reasons
                                                                        and documents provide by the applicant in relation to
under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        the measures complained of, those services took no action
                                                                        whatsoever vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities. On 6 November
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.                                        2000, the applicant, taking the view that, despite the com-
                                                                        plexity of the case, the Commission had had more than a
                                                                        reasonable period in which to adopt a position with regard to
                                                                        the complaint made more than two years previously, lodged a
                                                                        document formally requesting that a decision be adopted by
                                                                        the Commission. Since that request, the period prescribed by
                                                                        Article 232 EC has more than expired without the Commission
                                                                        having defined its position.
Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                     The applicant claims that the Commission was under an
                                                                        obligation to adopt a decision on the complaint either
                          (Case T-41/01)                                declaring that the measures complained of do not constitute
                                                                        State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC or that they
                                                                        must be characterised as such but are compatible with the
                         (2001/C 134/55)                                common market, or by initiating the formal investigation
                                                                        procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC. The applicant
                                                                        takes the view, accordingly, that the Commission has failed to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar, residing in Madrid, represented by Fernando Moreno
Pardo.


title: Case C-452/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/22

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission
   (Case C-452/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro v European Commission, notified by fax on 1 July 2010 (OJ 2010 C 221, p. 39) and, accordingly:

                           (i)

                           uphold the form of order sought in the application initiating proceedings at first instance for the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 (C(2008) 869 final) on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy ‘on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks’ (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70); or

                           (ii)

                           in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The appellants submit that the General Court did not carry out a thorough review of the Commission’s decision, refusing to ascertain whether it was lawful for the Commission to decide not to take into account the situation of the transferring entities for the purposes of determining whether the contested scheme was selective;

               2.

               The appellants submit that, by adopting as the criteria for its own assessment only the data proposed by the Commission in its decision, the General Court misinterpreted the case-law of the Court of Justice, which allows the specific nature of a fiscal measure to be justified in the light of the logic of the general tax system;

               3.

               The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted the case-law on the requirement for State aid to be selective, according to which, in order to determine whether a fiscal measure is selective, regard must be had simply to the effects which it is likely to produce in terms of taxation;

               4.

               The appellants submit that the General Court distorted the facts, by holding mistakenly that the general realignment scheme did not allow undertakings to realign the tax cost of the assets relating to undertakings received by way of transfer with the higher values recorded on the balance sheet;

               5.

               Lastly, the appellants submit that the General Court wrongly substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission, developing afresh reasons in support of the contested decision of the Commission.


title: Case C-497/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Froukje Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Status of the purchaser — Consumer status — Lack of conformity of the goods delivered — Duty to inform the seller — Lack of conformity which became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods — Burden of proof)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Froukje Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV
   (Case C-497/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Status of the purchaser - Consumer status - Lack of conformity of the goods delivered - Duty to inform the seller - Lack of conformity which became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods - Burden of proof))
   (2015/C 236/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Froukje Faber

      Defendant: Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an action relating to a contract which may be covered by that directive has been brought, is required to determine whether the purchaser may be classified as a consumer within the meaning of that directive, even if the purchaser has not relied on that status, as soon as that court has at its disposal the matters of law and of fact that are necessary for that purpose or may have them at its disposal simply by making a request for clarification.

               2)

               Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that it must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to a national rule which ranks, within the domestic legal system, as a rule of public policy and that the national court must of its own motion apply any provision which transposes it into domestic law.

               3)

               Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which provides that the consumer, in order to benefit from the rights which he derives from that directive, must inform the seller of the lack of conformity in good time, provided that that consumer has a period of not less than two months from the date on which he detected that lack of conformity to give that notification, that the notification to be given relates only to the existence of that lack of conformity and that it is not subject to rules of evidence which would make it impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer to exercise his rights.

               4)

               Article 5(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule that the lack of conformity is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery of the goods

                           —

                           applies if the consumer furnishes evidence that the goods sold are not in conformity with the contract and that the lack of conformity in question became apparent, that is to say, became physically apparent, within six months of delivery of the goods. The consumer is not required to prove the cause of that lack of conformity or to establish that its origin is attributable to the seller;

                           —

                           may be discounted only if the seller proves to the requisite legal standard that the cause or origin of that lack of conformity lies in circumstances which arose after the delivery of the goods.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-9/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Request for the return of personal property — Notification of the decision rejecting the complaint in a language other than that of the complaint — Action out of time — No response to a head of claim submitted at first instance)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-9/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Request for the return of personal property - Notification of the decision rejecting the complaint in a language other than that of the complaint - Action out of time - No response to a head of claim submitted at first instance)
   2011/C 13/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-133/06 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-133/06 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, in so far as it did not rule on the application for a declaration that the decision contested at first instance did not exist;

               2.

               dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               dismisses the action inasmuch as it sought a declaration that the contested decision did not exist;

               4.

               orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case. The costs of the proceedings at first instance which culminated in the above order in Marcuccio v Commission are to be borne in accordance with point 2 of the operative part of that order.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-607/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/36

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM — Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.)
   (Case T-607/13)
   2014/C 45/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               join the proceedings in this case to the proceedings in Case T-435/12;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the defendant’s decision of 9 July 2012 in Case R 2100/2011-2 (Case T-435/12);

               —

               alter the defendant’s decision of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753550 against the application for the Community trade mark ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol’;

               —

               order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42 % vol.’

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element ‘42 BELOW’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation


title: Appeal chamber

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/19

         Appeal chamber
   (2006/C 10/36)
   On 6 December 2005 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 12 of its Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007 appeals brought against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal are to be assigned, as soon as the application initiating proceedings has been lodged and without prejudice to subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to an appeal chamber.
   The appeal chamber is to be composed of the President of the Court of First Instance and of the Presidents of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers (all Extended Composition).
   For the period from 12 December 2005 to 31 August 2007 the following are in consequence attached to the appeal chamber sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vesterdorf, President, and Messrs Jaeger, Pirrung, Vilaras and Legal, Judges.


title: Case T-161/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/27

         Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-161/05)
   (2005/C 155/53)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and U. Itzen, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's Decision of 17 February 2005, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               or, in the alternative, reduce the fine laid down in Article 2 of the contested decision as appropriate;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In contested Decision No C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 the Commission asserted that the applicant and other companies had infringed Article 81(1) EC (and, since 1 January 1994, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement as well) by allocating volume quotas and customers, agreeing price increases, setting up a compensation mechanism, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, meeting regularly and being involved in other forms of contact, in order to agree on and implement the restrictions described. A fine was imposed on the applicant as a result of these infringements.
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its claim. First of all, it contends that, as a result of the separation and subsequent transfer of the business in question, no fine can be imposed on it for legal reasons.
   Secondly, the claimant submits that the imposition of a fine is inadmissible even if the applicant's liability for a fine is accepted, given that exemption was granted to the successor parent company of the company which made the application for exemption, but not to the applicant as its former parent company. In that respect, the applicant complains that there is no obvious legal ground for such differentiation.
   The third plea concerns the calculation of the fine. According to the applicant, as a result of the 1996 Leniency Notice the fine should have been reduced by 10 % given that it expressly accepted the essential facts which form the basis of the points of the complaint.
   The applicant complains further that the calculation of the basic amount was disproportionate in both absolute and relative terms and unreasonable, in the light of the Commission's usual decision-making practice.
   Fifthly, the applicant objects to the option to increase fines to take account of previous procedures, to which specific reference was made, and argues, in the alternative, that the principle non bis in idem was infringed.
   For the remainder, the applicant complains that it was given no access to the files and of the gross illegality of the hearing officers' report and finally, of the legality of the order to bring the infringement to an end.


title: Case C-410/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Baltlanta’ UAB v Lietuvos valstybė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural funds — Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 38 — Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 — Article 19 — Fisheries — Court proceedings at national level — Obligation on the part of the Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the decision relating to the grant of funds following court proceedings)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/19

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Baltlanta’ UAB v Lietuvos valstybė
      (Case C-410/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural funds - Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 38 - Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 - Article 19 - Fisheries - Court proceedings at national level - Obligation on the part of the Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the decision relating to the grant of funds following court proceedings))
      (2014/C 395/23)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:‘Baltlanta’ UAB

         Defendant: Lietuvos valstybė

         Intervening parties: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 38(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Guidelines on the closure of assistance (2000 to 2006) from the Structural Funds, adopted by Commission Decision COM(2006)3424 final of 1 August 2006, must be interpreted as neither obliging the State authorities concerned to inform the European Commission of the existence of court proceedings relating to an administrative decision on the eligibility of an application for financial assistance such as that at issue in the main proceedings, nor to take the measures necessary so that funds that have been provided are reserved for the disputed assistance until the question of the award of the assistance has been finally decided.

         (1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-437/02: Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fisheries — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 — Conservation and management of fishery resources — Control measures for fishing activities)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-437/02: Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fisheries - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3760/92 and 2847/93 - Conservation and management of fishery resources - Control measures for fishing activities)
   (2005/C 132/03)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-437/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and M. Huttunen) against Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Kourula) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 3 December 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, for the fishing years 1995 and 1996:

                           —

                           to enact appropriate detailed rules for the use of the fishing rights allocated to it and to carry out the inspections and other checks required by the applicable Community legislation;

                           —

                           to prohibit provisionally fishing within the appropriate periods in order to avoid exhausting the quotas, and

                           —

                           to institute the criminal or administrative measures which it was obliged to take against masters of vessels who infringed the rules relating to the common fisheries policy and against all other persons responsible for such infringements,

                     the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, and Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.


title: Case T-131/00: Action brought on 16 May 2000 by Robert Schochaert against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 285/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.10.2000
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000              Action brought on 28 June 2000 by Société Biret Inter-
      concerning the withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on           national against the Council of the European Union
      the market of medicinal products for human use containing
      the substances ‘Clobenzorex’, ‘Fenbutrazat’, ‘Fenproporex’,
      ‘Mazindol’, ‘Mefenorex’, ‘Norpseudoephredin’, ‘Phenmetrazin’                                 (Case T-174/00)
      and ‘Propylhexedrin’ (C(2000) 608) is suspended pending the
      making of the orders bringing the proceedings for interim relief                             (2000/C 285/21)
      to a close.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 28 June 2000 by Société Biret International,
                                                                          established in Paris, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues, of the
Action brought on 16 May 2000 by Robert Schochaert                        Paris Bar.
         against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-131/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 285/20)                                 —     establish the liability of the European Community in the
                                                                                court-supervised liquidation of the company known as
                                                                                Biret International;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     order the Council of the European Union to pay to Biret
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         International damages in the sum of FRF 87 006 000;
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 May 2000 by Robert Schochaert, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, of the Brussels Bar.          —     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
                                                                                costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority refusing             Pleas in law and main arguments
      to promote the applicant to grade B1, and rule that he
      should be promoted to that grade, with retroactive effect
      from the 1999 promotions procedure, within one month                The applicant, a company incorporated under French law
      from the date of the Court’s decision, failing which the            which is currently in liquidation and the object of which is
      defendant is to pay a periodic penalty of 5 000 Belgian             trade in various agricultural food products, particularly meat,
      francs per day of delay.                                            claims compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by it as
                                                                          a result of the prohibition of imports into the Community of
                                                                          beef and veal, especially of American origin. The company is
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           co-owned, as to 34 % of its capital, by Cargill USA.
The applicant maintains, first, that the refusal to include his
name on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade             That prohibition was decided upon and implemented pursuant
B1 was based on an error of fact, namely that the position                to Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting
occupied by him since 1998 did not involve responsibilities               the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a
justifying a promotion by comparison with the other candi-                hormonal action (1) and Council Directive 72/462/EEC of
dates for promotion. He claims in that regard that the position           12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection prob-
which he has occupied since 1998 — and which he occupied,                 lems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh
in particular, at the time of the decision refusing his promotion         meat from third countries (2). Those two directives were
— corresponds, in fact and in law, to a post involving the                replaced by Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996
duties of a grade B1 official.                                            concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of
                                                                          certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action
Second, he considers that the fact that he has been refused               and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
promotion to grade B1 sixteen years in succession, despite his            88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (3).
having been awarded either ‘particularly high’ or ‘exceptionally
high’ grades in his staff reports, can be explained only by the
existence of some deep-rooted ill-feeling towards him at a                The applicant states in that regard that, since neither the
certain level in the hierarchy above him.                                 Community legislation nor the national legislation has progres-
                                                                          sed towards a lifting of the prohibitions or the introduction of
                                                                          a more flexible system, it has not been possible for the flow of
                                                                          business which it had envisaged to materialise.


title: Case T-394/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2013 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark Holding (SOLVO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO — Earlier Community word mark VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2013 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark Holding (SOLVO)
   (Case T-394/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO - Earlier Community word mark VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 24/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented: initially by T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 861/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 in Case R 861/2010-1;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Elena Grebenshikova;

               3.

               Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by Ms Grebenshikova.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/27

         Removal from the Register of Case T-14/00 (1)

   (2004/C 239/58)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-14/00, C.A.V. Ulestraten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 13.5.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 171/5
      from being regarded by the national court as capable of being          of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
      relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating     Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
      and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into        Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was              22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the
      French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being          1.    A limited company established, owned and managed by a
      relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules            regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,
      on publicity.                                                                within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)
                                                                                of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                                the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
( 1) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.                                                        contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting
                                                                                the development of industrial or commercial activities on the
                                                                                territory of that regional or local authority. To determine
                                                                                whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,
                                                                                the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed
                                                                                when that company was set up and the conditions in which it
                                                                                carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact
                                                                                that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that
                                                                                it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any
                                                                                public financing of the activity in question.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             2.    The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a
                                                                                single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is
                                                                                shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not
                                                                                having an industrial or commercial character.
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taito-
                              talo Oy (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governed by public                                            of 22 May 2003
law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to
promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-                  in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties on the territory of that authority)                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                           (2003/C 171/05)                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective
                                                                             equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                           by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in                In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtu-                (Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
uritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti                    W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Var-                    supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
kauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of                D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  although it complies with the requirements of Council Direc-
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President                     tive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/6                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective             Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA and
equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18), and bears the EC marking,                  Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd, on the interpretation of
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, the Court              protection of geographical indications and designations of
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
General; H.-A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:                            Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
                                                                             C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and of Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
1.    Declares that by subjecting, by means of the legislation of            registration of geographical indications and designations of
      certain Länder, personal protection equipment for firefighters to      origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
      additional requirements despite the fact that it complies              Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1), the Court,
      with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-
      21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the               chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C. W. A. Timmermans
      Member States relating to personal protective equipment and            (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      bears the EC marking, the Federal Republic of Germany has              D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that        S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
      directive;                                                             Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;               it has ruled:
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                  1.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                                                                                origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
                                                                                the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
                                                                                of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
                                                                                and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
                                                                                Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                                                                                of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            the product take place in the region of production, where such a
                                                                                condition is laid down in the specification.
                            of 20 May 2003
in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    2.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto
the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma,                            di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the
Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods                           condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out
                                  Ltd ( 1)                                         in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having
                                                                                equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within
                                                                                the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified,
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               and hence compatible with that provision.
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ — Specification — Requirement for ham to be
sliced and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29
EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may                       3.    However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against
be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty —                             economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by
                                Publicity)                                         adequate publicity in Community legislation.
                            (2003/C 171/07)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
In Case C-108/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case T-163/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Ternavsky v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Error of assessment)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Ternavsky v Council
   (Case T-163/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 213/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Anatoly Ternavsky (Moscow, Russia) (represented initially by C. Raspin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers, subsequently by G. Berrisch, A. Polcyn, lawyers, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and lastly by G. Berrisch)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), of Council Implementing Decision 2014/24/CFSP of 20 January 2014 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2014 L 16, p. 32), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 46/2014 of 20 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2014 L 16, p. 3) in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus in so far as they concern Mr Anatoly Ternavsky;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one-half of those incurred by Mr Ternavsky in the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Mr Ternavsky to bear other half of his own costs in the present proceedings and tol bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council in the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2003 in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/29
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                            J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: D. Christensen,
                                                                            Administrator, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which
3.     Orders Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH to bear their
                                                                            it:
       own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay two thirds of the
       Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to bear one
       third of its own costs.                                              1.     Declared the application to be inadmissible in so far as it seeks
                                                                                annulment of Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of 14 September
                                                                                2000;
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                            2.     Declared the application to be admissible but unfounded in so
                                                                                far as it seeks annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045 of
                                                                                5 September 2000;
                                                                            3.     Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay
                                                                                those incurred by the Commission and by Salzgitter and
                                                                                Mannesmann.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ No C 61 of 24.2.01.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                             of 8 July 2003
in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
(Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly
by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision
                                                                            in Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou v Commission of the
to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision
                                                                                European Communities (1)
declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis
of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 —
Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the                  (Officials — Repayment of mission expenses — Business
EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of                                               class air travel)
concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC
   Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)                                             (2003/C 213/56)
                           (2003/C 213/55)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou, an official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
In Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV, estab-
lished in Düsseldorf (Germany), Eisen- und Metallwerke                      H. Tserepa-Lacombe), — application for annulment of the
                                                                            Commission’s decision of 24 March 2000 making three
Ferndorf GmbH, established in Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, established in Siegen                         ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts and
                                                                            charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed and, in
(Germany), represented by H. Hellmann, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                            addition, a request that the Commission should be ordered to
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
W. Wils), supported by Mannesmann AG, established in                        repay to the applicant the amounts deducted from his
                                                                            remuneration by way of sums overclaimed, — the Court of
Düsseldorf, represented by K. Moosecker and P. Niggemann,
                                                                            First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
lawyers, and by Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter
                                                                            dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers
                                                                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
— application for annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045
of 5 September 2000 and Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of                          9 July 2003, in which it:
14 September 2000, by which the Commission authorised, on
the basis of, respectively, Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)             1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2003 making
No 4064/89 and Article 66(2) CS, the acquisition by Salzgitter                     three ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts
of control of Mannesmannröhren-Werke — the Court of First                          and charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed inasmuch


title: Case T-481/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2007 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — J. Capela & Irmãos Lda (VOGUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community word mark VOGUE — Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal — Facts raised for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2007 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — J. Capela & Irmãos Lda (VOGUE)
   (Case T-481/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community word mark VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal - Facts raised for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal)
   (2007/C 283/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., established in New York, New York (United States), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer,

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by J. Laporta Insa, Agent,

      Other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J. Capela & Irmãos, L.da, (Porto, Portugal),
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2), concerning opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, L.da and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-336/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament (Interim relief — European Parliament — Measure excluding a Member of Parliament from his political group — Application to suspend enforcement — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility of the application — Lack of urgency)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/42

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament
   (Case T-336/13 R)
   (Interim relief - European Parliament - Measure excluding a Member of Parliament from his political group - Application to suspend enforcement - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility of the application - Lack of urgency)
   2013/C 260/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Borghezio (Turin, Italy) (represented by: H. Laquay, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the enforcement of the measure of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as a non-attached member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.